Program evaluation

Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. F.A. JOE D. BELL, F.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, F.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. F.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER F.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR. F.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. F.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. F.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. F.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER F.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. F.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. F.A, HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. F.A. PRICE C. GARDNER P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. F.A. JEFFREY IJ. MOORE. F.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. F.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, F.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirfn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-685-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. F.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. F.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. F.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH F. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. E2:ELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA Caffs rose BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. FATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. F.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 halUrQfec.nac January 12, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jan 13 2004 Received Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris HolmesJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MAR ^1? 2004 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Ro.ad Little Rock, Akkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F. (501) 372-3428 EiVAIL: mcheiiryd@swbell.net J March 8. 2004 Mr. Cliristopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Chris
I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. Very truly yours, /
I I : i/ L b' L John W. Walker '-6- JWW
lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshal Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. MarK Burnette-fo fa.)C CP received MAR 1 200't OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 9NW01IN0WN0llVD3aD3S30 d030HJ0 ^00? J I yvw JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS a3A3O3a Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8*** Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation
and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics & Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afncan American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. JJ 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of Afncan American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afncan American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of T* or 8* grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive
it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, iy John W. Walker ' .>4^^ I 1 / c \ JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE OUU W. CAPI lUL, ROOM 423 i-iTTLc nOCK, Bill WILSON JUDGE Ov4-5i|UU Pscsimiiv (ovi) 604-5 i45 March 10, 2004 Tho Wz^nz^rahlQ Oav/ ( (UI LJ U ICppQI l/UI LI (UUOC 500 West Capiioi, rsucrn i45 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Ray ECEIVE, MAR 1 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR?!: Enclosed iS s copy of Mr, Walker's March 10, 2004 fax iexter to Ms. Marshall. by copy of this letter I remind Mr. Walker and other counsel of record to copy you with correspondence and other matters. ^//// / i/^ /I/1 b't / /A' I Wn< R. Wilson, Jr. Tiginal.' Athor r'O Mr. JaiTiSS W. lerk & 1----------- COURT eastern DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAR 1 1 2004 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ____________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS 1. ORDER I have received a copy of Mr. Walkers March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed
and a request for facilitation by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. J. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshalls office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the numerous areas of disagreement. Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. 'I8- 4. Any suggestion of facilitating at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, 1 would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed, so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. rfH- IT IS SO ORDERED this / /^day of March, 2004. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG| UNITED Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, pa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4/? / Re: Little Rock School District nsa
's Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8* Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met -with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled
1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation
and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics & Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter aha, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountabihty mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the exphcit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its comphance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for Afiican American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial difierences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated fi-om the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afiican American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. 57 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afiican American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for AlBrican American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4* or S'** grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive
it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW
js cc
Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 CHECK LIST FOR ENGLISH CLASSROOMS r Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Be Seen Comments 1. Teacher engaged with students. 2. Students' creations on walls. 3. Students often seated in groups or pods._________________ 4. Students who can discuss their work.. 5. Students interacting with peers. 6. Classroom libraries and sustained reading time._________ 7. Students able to relate benchmarks, standards, assessments.__________ 8. Use of rubrics and performance-based assessments. 9. Benchmarks clearly displayed in room. 10.Teacher reading and writing with students. Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Not _________________Be Seen____________ 1. Teacher sitting behind desk. 2. drab, boring, or "old" classroom. 3. Students in rows all the time. 4. Rote skill, drill or busy work. 5. Worksheets and packaged materials. 6. Prolonged silent periods of time. 7. One objective on board. 8. All multiple choice or "canned" tests. 9. Students who do not know how they are doing or waiting for overdue papers. 10. Paper grading in class by teacher while students are working. Comments Date Signature
s c o 1 CQ cS CQ o o o co "S g 6 o O d Constructive and Effective Evaluation Granimar/Mechanics Taught in Context at Editing Stage Collaboration-------------------------------- Process Writing ------------------------- Scoring Guides
Rubrics --------------- Phase Questions
Writing Writing before/after reading Teacher Modeling Reading Writing Silent Reading
Discussions Independent Reading Active Reading I (P > O (U -H Minilessons ______ Skills Taught in Context of Meaningful Literature Grammar i Spelling/ Vocabulary Mugshots Dates IPrograms on Page 148, -intertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1* semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms on Page 148, -tntertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1 st semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms listed in Interim Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Title I Programs PLATO Labs Accelerated Learning Center Alternative Learning Center Summer School Tutoring Programs 21 Century Community Learning Centers Project ACT Tutoring Career Orientation Block Scheduling High School Advisory Program Personalized Education Plan K-12 Science Professional Development for Science Teachers Citizenship and Character EducationPrograms listed in the final Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Achievement Level Tests Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 Criterion-Referenced Test (End if Unit/Modual Exams) Mathematics and Science State Benchmark Exams, Grades 4, 6, and 8 Stanford Achievement Test, g Edition Professional Development Instructional Standards Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies Staffing Curriculum Guides Teachers of Tomorrow AP World History Pilot Progrm in Grade 8 American History Citizenship Assessment Professional Development Social Studies ResourcesFine Arts Summer School Tutoring Programs Extended Year Education Pathwise Badgett Charter School Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Project 21 Century Community Learning Carters Grand Project Carnegie Planning Grant for High School Reform Proposal for Magnet School Grant for Cloverdale Middle School, Mabelvale Middle School, Fair High School, and McClellan High School Charter School Planning Grant to Expand the Accelerated Learning CenterRECEIVED First Quarterly Progress Update December 1, 2004 NOV 3 2004 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Outline Purpose This update is of actions taken with respect to the new Compliance Remedy: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 9? B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. ... the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction C. program. 99 During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 99 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals LRSD has hired three new professionals with knowledge and experience in assessment evaluation, and statistical analysis: As of October 1, 2004, the Planning, Research, & Evaluation team consists of: Karen DeJamette, PhD, Director (cite date of hire and bio) Maurecia Malcolm, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) James C. Wohlleb, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) Continued employment of Ed Williams, PhD, Statistician (cite bio) Yvette Dillingham, Testing Coordinator (cite bio) Irma Shelton and Malinda administrative assistants (cite years of experience)B. Devise and imbed a comprehensive program assessment process. In late September the reinvigorated PRE began devising the comprehensive program assessment process that will be deeply imbedded in LRSDs educational operations. Dr. Dejamette and staff continued cooperation with Dr. Steve Ross to review the draft Policy IL-R2 and to redefine the policy to include a comprehensive program assessment process that fits the needs of the Little Rock School District: Discussion of Drs. Brooks and Dejamette and Mr. Heller: Telephone conference between Drs. Dejamette & Ross: October 5 conference of Drs. Brooks, DeJamette, & Ross in Memphis: October 7 introductions to Mr. Gene Jones & general discussion. October 26 telephone conference of Drs. DeJamette & Ross & Mr. Wohlleb: Agreement by Dr. Ross: C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. LRSD has begun negotiations to hire Drs. Ross & Catterall to perform the following tasks... Drs. Ross and Catterall were contacted late September for preliminary conversations regarding the 4 step 2 evaluations for 2004-2005 [List dates and times of conversations with superintendent, school board, ODM, intervenors] Process of selecting programs for evaluation, including PRE staff efforts to initially review all programs currently operating and then to discuss possibilities with Ross and Catterall to determine selection of 4 programs to formally evaluate Design of Evaluation studies (mini-proposals?) Schedule of evaluations and reportsAppendices Resumes of staff Memo from Ross related to IL-R2 Schedule of tasks & assignmentsLittle Rock School District Planning, Research, & Evaluation Department Evaluation Designs for Programs Greater Second Baptist Church 5615 Geyer Springs Road February 16, 2005 Agenda 7:45 a.m. Dr. Karen DeJarnette & PRE team welcome Drs. Steve Ross, Anna Grehan. Dan Strahl. & Aaron McDonald from U/Memphis & Drs. Gail Weems & Linda Dorn from UALR 8:30 a m. Drs. Lloyd Sain, Roy Brooks & Sadie Mitchell address principals 8:50 a m. Presentation of evaluation designs to principals by Dr. Steve Ross 9:30 Dr. Ross & team meet with directors of programs: 9:3010:15 Reading Recovery
Dr. Linda Dorn from UALR, Pat Busbea, & Krista Underwood 10:1511 Smart/Thrive: Vanessa Cleaver & Marcelline Carr 12:00 Center) Lunch Compass Learning: Lucy Neal & Travis Taylor (Tech 2 p.m. Wrap-up of PRE & Dr. Ross teams8: 00 - 8:25 LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING Greater Second Baptist Church Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8
30 A.M. - 3
00 P.M. Continental Breakfast 8:30 Call to Order Dr. Lloyd Sain 8:30 - 8:50 Organizational Chart Dr. Roy G. Brooks Dr. Sadie Mitchell 8:50-9:20 Evaluation Designs for Programs Dr. Steve Ross 9:20 -10:30 A.M. Constructivist Teaching in the Literacy Classrooms Dr. Olivine Roberts Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Suzi Davis Krista Underwood Elementary Principals - Downstairs Secondary Principals - Classroom #8 - Upstairs 10:30 -10:45 Break 10:45 -12:05 Part I: Constructivist Teaching Continued 12:05 -12:40 Lunch (On-site) 12:45 - 2:30 Part II: Constructivist Teaching 2:30 - 2:45 Break Return to Fellowship Hall for a General Meeting 2:45 - 3:05 Maculaitis Assessments Dr. Karen Broadnax 3:05-3:15 Wrap-up/Evaluation Drs. Sain and Mitchell Evaluation of heading Eecovey in the Uttle V^ock School System x=: Conducted by R&' j FEB i . CREP > Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimaiy YLvaluation Question... a Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievements of African-American students? JJSupplemental Pivaluation Questions... What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the participating schools? What is the level of participation in reading Recovery by African-American students? What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other students in Reading Recovery in improving achievement? What are the perceptions of the Reading Recovery teachers and principals? What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers regarding Reading Recovery? What are the perceptions of parents of Reading Recovery students?Evaluation Procedures,.. DRA or Dibels 2004-05 Reading and Math Subtests Reading Recovery Teacher Phone Interviews Reading Recovery School Teachers Survey Reading Recovery Principal Interview with Randomly Selected Principals. Reading Recovery Achievement Profiles Tutoring Observations School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation) Reading Recovery Parent Survey The Tutoring Observations will consist of Reading Recovery experts observing tutoring sessions.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June Begin observations Interview Reading Recovery Teachers Survey Reading Recovery teachers and parents Complete Reading Recovery teacher interviews Profile Reading Recovery achievement Analyze records/archival data analyses July-September October November Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews PRE reviews draft reports PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval Draft reports for reviewSchoolparticipation guidelines... Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools It is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individuai teachers or schools.Evaluation of the Smart! Thrive Programs in the Tittle Tock School District Conducted by CREP received FEB 1 . 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION uOHlTOWNG > Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimary Evaluation Question... (( Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African/American students? JJSupplementary Questions... What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African-American students? What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive tutors regarding the program? What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding the Smart/Thrive program? What are the perceptions of participating students regarding the Smart/Thrive program? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding the program?Iivaluation Procedures... Achievement Analysis Quasi Experimental School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation) Observations of Tutoring Sessions Smart/Thrive Tutor Questionnaire Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Smart/Thrive Student Questionnaire Smart/Thrive Parent Questionnaire Observation of tutoring sessions wiii consist of visits to the Saturday Aigebra ci asses.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June Observe Thrive Sessions Administer Teacher, Tutor and Parent Questionnaire Complete Focus Groups and Observations Begin Focus Groups Analyze records/archival data July-September October November Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews PRE reviews draft report PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval Draft reports for reviewSchool Participation Guidelines... Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Facilitate researcher visits to schools It Is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individual teachers or schools.Evaluation of Compass Eearning in the Uttle Eock School System Conducted by RECEJVED FEB 1 '1 2005 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION I.iONlTORlNG CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy >Primary Evaluation Question... "Has the Compass Learning program been effective in improving and remeditating the academic achievement of African-American students?" Supplemental Questions... What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of Compass Learning at the participating schools? What is the level of participation by African-American students? What are the perceptions of teachers and technology specialists? What are the perceptions of parents?Evaluation Procedures... 1^ Student Level Achievement Analysis Quasi Experimental Compass Learning Teacher Survey Technology Specialist Phone Interview District Compass Learning Program Coordinator Phone Interview 10 Two Hour Compass Learning Laboratory Observations 5-Twenty Minute Student Focus Groups Compass Learning Parent Survey School Records and Archival Data (e.g.. Participation) Observations will be conducted by trained observers using CREP observation instruments validated through extensive research.Evaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June Begin observations Survey teachers & Parents Analyze records/data analysis Phone interviews of tech specialists Complete observations, interviews and student focus groups. July-Sep tember October November Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews PRE reviews draft reports PRE submits report to LRSD for approval Draft report for reviewSchool participation guideline... Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools 'J- It is important to remember that this study does not evaluate individual teachers or schools.Sent from to p2/ll F, 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 RESPONSE TO COURTS OCTOBER 31, 2005 ORDER - LRSDS WITNESS SUMMARIES In response to the Courts Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witnes.s will take thirty minutes. LRSD does not expect to call Dr. Brooks a,s a witness, a.s the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Courts June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy
that LRSDs Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful
that he had access to all relevant documents and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005
that LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required S tep 2 program evaluations
thatSent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:15 from to p3/ll PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work
that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Courts compliance remedy
that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSDs compliance
that PRE, as far as he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005
that LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors
that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansas benchmark exams for their completion
that such data was not available in a form useful to LRSDs experts before October 1
that the reporting of Arkansas benchmark results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education
that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of benchmark exam results
that in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations
and that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline
that LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3ff'' & Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testily that she i.s director of PRE and has been since September 17,2004
that implementing the compliance remedy has been PREs top priority during the time she has been its director
that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy
that LRSD hired Dr. James S. Catterall. a qualified expert, to evaluate its 2Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:43 from to P4/11 Year-Round Education (YRE) prognim
that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross, a qualified expert, to pertorm the Step 2 evaluations ot SMART/THRTVE, Compass Learning, and Reading Recovery
that Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy
that they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004
that PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSDs progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy
that. beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court
that those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam results would be available in July 2005
that during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request
that LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision
that the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirements of the Compliance Remedy
that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansas benchmark examinations
that in order to be useful to Drs. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form
that the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005
that the reporting of Arkansas benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas 3Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:14 from to p5/ll Department of Education
that there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results
and that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy
that the requested extension of time was made in good faith based on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy
and that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRSD - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005, 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Lo.s Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310-455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Courts June 30,2004 Compliance Remedy
that he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:36 - from to p6/ll Courts June 30. 2004 Compliance Remedy
that PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance
that 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005
that such information is not yet available
and that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30,2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations was completed in a timely manner and that he wax waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations
that it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his assignment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation JO"* & Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004 as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same as that of Dr. Karen DeJamette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 5Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:59 - from to p7/ll Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE)
that she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansas benchmark examinations in particular
that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be released in July 2005
that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committee.s were working to reset the cut score.s for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phases
that Phase I would consist of cds containing raw score reports which would be shipped to districts no later than July 1, 2005
that assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores
and that Phase 11 Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005"
that the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be released in mid-November
that release of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and its contractors
that LRSD has done nothing to delay the release of the results
and that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller wilt testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiiy, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:25 - from to P8/11 true
that he filed a response to the Courts September 30,2005 Order on October 4,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true
that, having now had the opportunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of "LRSDs Response to Order probably occuned in February or March rather than June or July, The principal reason for not tiling LRSDs Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsels intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee-, that matter was scheduled as follows
May 5,2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005
May 19, 2005 Oral Argument
June 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed
July 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits
June 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters
July 19, 2005 Multiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks
July 26,2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations
August 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings
September 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:47 from to p9/ll in July and that the October 1,2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJamette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fashion because of his involvement in the Lake View case. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted. Philip E. Kaplan (68026) Kaplan. Brewer, Maxey & Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan @kbmlaw.net /sZ Philip E. Kaplan 8Sent 03/11/2005 at 12:00:02 from to plO/11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following
Clark-hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sionesft'mwsgw.com siQiies@ili.cotn iohawalkeranv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Sheet Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Philip E. Kaplan 9VQ/XX/Z.UVO dL ii:uo:oa rom to p2/5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Pagel of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4
82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DATED OCTOBER 31.20GS The Court seeks as explanation for LRSDs failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1,2005 requirements of e Courts June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain why delay was not promptly sought The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Courts limited concern would be addressed on November?, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD
1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the 1X X um CU po/ O Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 2) 3) 4) time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 20 minutes Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh
his involvement in the process was also minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 15 minutes Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJamette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses. Drs. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller
(b) her minimal involvement in the process
and, (c) her failure to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time for compliance with Joshua, the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes Joy Springer
(a) will address Mr. Hellers contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller infonned Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005
(b) that when Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12,2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing
(c) Joshuas efforts to be involvedin the process
(d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline
and (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2a c XI um ro Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) 6) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes Mr. Gene Jones: will address the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice given by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response of the LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted, /s/John W. Walker______________ John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781)862-1955 3UJtill b X/ X.UVU a. L irom to pb/b Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 4 of 4 XX
lu:uo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that on this 2' day of November, 2005,1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NA.ACP Legal Defense & Educational fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney Generals Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /s/John W, Walker 4John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS received MAR 2005 ' OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION InONlTORlNG Via Facsimile March 8, 2005 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 mar o 2C05 RECEiVi 0 Re: LRSD Program Evaluations DESEGREGADON I'.iONlTORING Dear Margie: When we met in my office in November, 2004,1 was left with the understanding that you would prepare notes of our meeting. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:jsrm I JOHN W, walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. Walker, PA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-376S Fas (501) 374-4187 I I Via Facsimile -447-7609 March 17,2005 OP COUNSEL ROBERT MsKENSy, P.A DONNAJ. McHENKY 8210 HfiNDSRSON ROAD Little mnwn 70010 PbonT
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email
atcheniydgswbeiiMt Karen DeJamette, PhD. Director PRE Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2005 S: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING jESEGhui
. I am advised by Ms. Springer that you promised to share with us, as you did with all other participants, by email copies of all documents, i.e. data collection instruments, discussed during the meetings on February 16,2005 prior to final print. To date, we have not received any of the final drafts for comments. You will recall that there were discussions regarding the survey forms for parents and teachers and other data collection documents where feedback was given. None of the final documents have been shared with us. I note that you have reported to the Court That counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments.' Would you also provide all documents including agendas, notes and any documents disseminated during the parent and teacher meetings held on or about February 24,2005. Finally, this is to request that you provide to this office any and all documents that you have shared and intend to share in the future with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Your cooperation is appreciated. I lincerely, 1 .'Walker I 'b JWWijs cc: Mr. Gene Jones, ODMptg^ Mzz Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge April 21,2005 Mr. Gene Jones & Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 received APR 2 1 2005 OFFICE OF DBSESRE6M10H MOHnOWHO Dear Mr. Jones & Ms. Powell: On Friday, May 6, at 2 PM we are convening the four teams participating in the Step-2 Evaluations of Little Rock School District programs. This session will occur in room 19 of the Instructional Resource Center at 3001 South Pulaski Street. We expect about an hour and a half duration. In addition to notifying you of this event, we invite you in case you would like to learn our progress evaluating Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Year- Round Education. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, mette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032MAY. 2.2005 2:i3Pn JOHN W WALKER P A NO.459 P.2 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, p.a, ATTORNEY AT Law 1723 BaoALiWAy IJTTLS Sees, 72206 Tblrphone CROI) 374.375fi FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile Mw2,2005 OFCOIJNSEL ROBERT McHENRY PA DONNA J. McHENRY 82X0 RoaD LrmE Rock. Askans-as 72210 Phone
(SOl) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Eil-z.: mdiemyd^wtejlirt K^en DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PSE Little Reek Sehuul District ^iO West Markham Little Rode, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I am in recent of your letter April 21,2005. This is to fiir&er advise that we have not received the requested iafonnation per our letter to you dated March 17,2005. Sincerely, W. Walker J^W
js ce
Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Gene Jones 124 West Capitxri Avenue, Suite 1S95 Little Rode. AR 72201 Catterall 5/11/2005 Draft Questions for Parent Interviews Target parents. Identify parents of an YRE student or students where at least one of these students spent two or more years in a traditional calendar year school. The main goal is to interview parents who have seen the same student (or students) in both the traditional and YRE school setting. Randomly select 20 of these parents from each of five YRE schools. Conduct a phone interview with each parent. A. Explain the purpose of the inten'iew. We are interested in how Year Round Education sckaobng in Lillie Rock is working, especially when it comes to student leaning. Since you have experience in both YRE and traditional calendar schools, wed like to asK you a few questions X number questions to he exact. Your name will be confidential. It will not appear in any of our reports and only your school name will remain with our notes from this interview. B. Confirm that a child in this family attended both YRE and traditional calendar schools. 1. What was the reason your students change from traditional calendar to YRE education? a. The school changed to YRE./_/ b. My child transferred to a YRE school/_/ c. Multiple children both reasons apply. Capture the essence of responses, but always check
a,, b., or c. You may spark talk of rationales for changing schools here e.g 1 wanted my student to learn more, wanted access to inter-sessions, didnt like previous school, etc. If parent claims to be dissatisfied with prior school, hear parent out here and bring this oack up when asking about differences between YRE and traditional calendar schools faelow. Record worthwhile quotes.2. What are the main differences you see between YRE and traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting. 3. Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn If applicable, solicit elaborations of any school effectiveness differences reported in Question 2. (Remember to focus on comparisons between YRE and traditional calendar year schools.) Or if learning did not come up in response to Question 2, ask parent: Whar do you see as (he main differences in student learning in YRE vs. traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 4. (If learning-related differences seem not well addressed in responses to Question 2, push harder on ieaming differences through the following question. If learning- differences were well-covered, skip to question 5.) Are there things about the YRE calendar that help kids learn better? (Draw out parent on perceptions of learning differences, YRE to traditional calendar.) You will probably get these sorts of responses, so check-off if you hear any of these
a. Kids are in school more. b. Shorter breaks/vacations. i- Kids forget less academic content iii. Shorter gaps in teaching. iv. Kids remember better how to behave in school. c. Inter-sessions help kids leam more. d. Teachers seem to like YRE better, and are happier in their jobs. e. Others (specify each). Also
Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting.5. In comparing YRE to traditional calendar schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Yes, a lot. Yes, a little. No. Check one that best describes main response. If No, interview is done. If Yes, probe for what kinds of differences and why they might exist. Pay attention to claims that specific aspects of being an YRE school affect how kids feel about school. their motivation for school. their outlook. And other effects mentioned. Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 6. Does your child/children talk about the fact that the they are in an YRE school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes.A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 26, 2005 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: This accompanies three copies of the third quarterly update, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court, due June 1,2005. Tucked inside the front of each is a copy of Dr. DeJamettes letter to Mr. Walker today indicating our interest in evaluating the 2U Century Learning Communities as the Joshua intervenors recommended in his letter of May 24 (previously copied to you). Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice in preparing this update. Sincerely yours, James C. Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, & Evaluation (PRE) Enc. xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Gene Jones & Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W. Markham - Lithe Rock. Arkansas 72201 wwrw.irsd.K12.ar.us .501-32200C r
50- 24-20t Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 2E Century Community Learning Centers interests us. After discussing it with Dr. Ross and others, we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 2E Century Community Learning Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the programs support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJarneoe, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Gene Jones & Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge & Clark 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 vrv.rv.irsd,kl2.ar.up 501-324-200C' fax
501 -32^-2032C'- An Individual Approach to a World o/Knoivledge May 27, 2005 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Dear Mr. Pressman
Mr. Walker requested that we furnish you the accompanying quarterly update of June 1 and future updates. You might also like a copy of my recent reply to Mr. Walker regarding evaluation of the 2D' Century Learning Communities. If you did not see the article, you might want to find the article about the program by Sue Shellenbarger in The Wall Street Journal of May 26, 2005. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Director, PRE xc: Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones & Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 g 810 W MarKham Littie Rock. ^irKansas 72201 * www.ifsd.ki2.ar.us -2000 ra::
501RECEIVED JUN -6 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge & Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY
Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1 day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin"o Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher 2 I 'si! DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining Li xwUz UUllvy I **- ---- --- -------------- - I I J X. external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged tvvo outside consultants to evaiuate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations: 4 Step-2 program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and 1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it ___ .> I __I__ .x: requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations." By step 2" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying .... ri. ___ -ruz, rir^or r,,that thp Cmift rfirected ths District to examine is reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the examine the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional Department to cooperate District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For siep 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page.1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. Knowledgepoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21' Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. st Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent of Students African- American Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Woodruff* A+ I 235 I 91 86 Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* Watson* Mabelvale Middle* McClellan* Henderson* Hall* 27 28 44 29 34 Knowledgepoints 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 21*' Century Community Learning Centers 57 75 60 105 634 925 630 1464 81 92 82 75 86 80 86 92 93 75 56 70 52 77^ I These schools are designated for School Improvement.LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens* Terry Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* Teachers Aides Students 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 . 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 22 28 2 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 AA 84.2 82.1 73.0 NA 78.0 80.0 61.1 75.7 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 57.5 81.6 67.5 87.5 56.4 30.0 100.0 61.5 79.5 92.3 51.4 74.4 89.3 94.4 54.1 88.9 88.9 t AA is African American. NA is not available. * These schools are designated for School Improvement. In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes
while the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity.Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District - six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced 1 Lunch Elementary Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Middle Schools Mann * High Schools Parkview Arts Magnet Basic Skills/Math-Science International Studies/ Foreign Languages Traditional Magnet Arts and Science Arts and Science 53 52 53 52 52 51 63 53 44 34 37 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-2005^ Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Middle Schools Cloverdale * Mabelvale * Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch^ Engineering, Multimedia & Economics Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 82 86 81 75 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude 3 indicator of family economic circumstances.information Technology High Schools J.A. Fair* McClellan * Science and technology Systems Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 85 92 Special Magnet Program* Themes - 2004-2005 54 56 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Elementary Schools King Rockefeller Romine Washington * Middle Schools Dunbar * Henderson * High Schools Central Hall* 4 5 Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch International, High Intensity Learning Early Childhood Computer Science and Basic Skills (Interdistrict) Basic Skills Math-Science Magnet (Interdistrict) Gifted and Talented, International Studies Health Science International Studies University Studies 60 67 76 76 61 82 51 75 55 66 76 80 57 70 28 52 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances.All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are: classroom observations and protocols surveys of parents, teachers, and students interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers focus groups student work portfolios district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. i ! IJuly 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP & ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Si^erely yours. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 10/03/2005 08:51 5016045149 WILSON PAGE 02/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern district of ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 800 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501)604-5140 Facaimila (501) 604-5149 October 3,2005 FAX LETTER Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Robert Peter Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD. et al, 4:82-cv-866-wrw Dear Counsel: I realize that this is short notice, but if possible, I would like to get the Joshua Intervenors response to LRSDs Motion for Extension of Time by 5 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, October 4,2005. If tomorrow afternoon is not enough timely, please file your response as soon as practicable at the latest, by the deadline set by the rules. Cordially, Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Recordreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 2005 I,.- OFFICE Of desegregation MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states
1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. 2. The four Step 2 program evaluations cannot be completed without the results of the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2004-05 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until October 1 or later. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that if they receive the benchmark exam results in early October that they would be able to deliver completed program evaluations by early January 2006. Letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 3. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful programevaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2006-07 school year. 4. LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year to and including Monday, January 16, 2006. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Zs/ Christopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29,2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@aK.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw-com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and I hereby certify that on September 29,2005,1 mailed the document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CMZECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ZsZ Christopher Heller 3UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY* DAVIS IRVINE LOSANCELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles. CA 90095-1521 September 26,2005 Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Karen: According to Dr. Julian, Assistant Commissioner for the state Department of Education, her agency will receive results of the Benchmark test scores "around the first of October", and your experience with release of digitally formatted data indicates that you may not receive data to pass on to me and my research staff until several weeks after the state receives it. At any rate, we do not have data in hand necessary to complete our report on Year-Round Education, certainly not by the present due date of October 1, 2005. Assuming you can deliver correctly formatted data by early November, I can furnish a draft in early December and the final report by early January 2006. This schedule should permit analyzing the data, composing a complete draft, and producing the final report. Anything you can do to confirm the date of data delivery will help our team plan the balance of the work. Sincerely, (e-mailed September 26, 2005 - Signed original sent express) jsc James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Professor Voice: (310) 825-5572 Fax: (310)206-6293 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax: 901.678.4257 September 23,2005 www.memphis.edu/crep Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Dr. Dejamette: I have been informed that the State of Arkansas will receive student-level Benchmark test scores at the beginning of October this year and release them to the school districts some time after that. I further understand that the digital version, which we need for computer analysis, will be available after the State sends printed versions to the districts. Thus, the data may not be available to my research staff until perhaps late fall. Whatever the actual delivery date, it typically takes us about six to eight weeks to run, verify, and interpret the analyses and then produce the draft report. I am asking you to take this time requirement into account in projecting when our final report could be ready following the release to us of Benchmark data. Given the dates above, we believe a reasonable date for delivery of the final report is early January 2006. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action UniversityRECEIVED OCT 3 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending is Little Rock School Districts Motion to Extend Time (Doc. No. 3938), the first paragraph of which, reads as follows: In accordance with the June30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. For emphasis I note that the above quoted paragraph correctly reflects that the June 30, 2004 order directed (not suggested) that the subject evaluations were to be filed on October 1, 2005 (actually, the Order directed that the evaluations were to be filed no later than October 1, 2005, but this is a small point). Late yesterday (at 4:34 p.m., to be specific), September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline, LRSD filed this Motion to Extend Time. It appears from the other matters set forth in the motion, that LRSD cannot meet the October 1 deadline because of uncompleted tasks. 1Before writing anything else I feel compelled to quote my complete order of July 26, 2004: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do. I assume that I am stating the obvious, but, as folks are wont to say nowadays, I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. LRSDs Motion to Extend Time also contains this paragraph: LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. Since the current motion by LRSD presents a weighty matter (at least my view), it seems that it would be important to have a response from Joshuas lawyers before the deadline passes. Is it possible that both lawyers of record for Joshua are traveling out of the country sans omnipresent cell phones? If what I have said above has not made it clear, I will now state it plainly - I am not happy with the Johnny-come-lately motion. These things, among others, are on my mind: 1. How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? 2. Why was the motion not filed until the 11th hour? 3. Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? 'Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 24. 5. Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? LRSD is directed to file a plenary response to each of the above questions by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, October 4, 2005. I note that sixty-nine page Order entered on June 30, 2004 was so long and detailed because LRSD pled that it did not understand exactly what its obligations were under earlier orders. It seems that this detailed order of June 30, 2004 did head off pleas of misunderstanding. but not a last minute motion to avoid its plain obligations, at least until a much later date. A hearing on LRSDs Motion to Extend Time will be set forthwith. The exact nature of that hearing will be determined after I receive LRSDs document in response to this Order (due next Tuesday, October 4, 2005, by 5 p.m.). IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2005. Zs/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 C,' Filed 10/04/2005 Paget of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER For its response to the Courts September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: Question No. 1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? Response: LRSD, Joshua and ODM have known for months that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported. LRSD has known since September 19, 2005 that the Arkansas Department of Education would receive the results of the benchmark examinations from its contractor around the first of October. LRSD has now received hard copies of the reports, but the electronic data necessary for the evaluations is not likely to be available for two or three weeks. Question No. 2: Why was the motion not filed until the 11* hour? Response: The Motion was not filed earlier for at least three reasons, all of which were influenced by the fact that both Joshua and ODM were aware that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported and that the experts could not complete the Step 2 evaluations without them. First, LRSD did not know until September 19 when the 2004-05 benchmark scores would be released, and consequently would have had to request an indefinite extension of time. Second,Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 2 of 4 LRSD discussed the situation with Joshua in June or July and was told by Joshuas counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSDs filing of such amotion. LRSD decided that there was no point in provoking additional litigation during the pendency of its appeal. Finally, the need for the extension of time was dictated by matters beyond LRSDs control. The timing of the motion would not alter the facts that the experts need the benchmark results and that LRSD could do nothing to hasten the delivery of those results. Question No. 3: Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? Response: No. Question No. 4: Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Response: No. LRSD believes in the merits of its appeal or it would not have filed it, but LRSD is not playing for time. The requested extension of time is not based on anything LRSD did or failed to do or anything that LRSD has any control over. LRSD hired outside experts to complete four Step 2 program evaluations in accordance with the Courts Order. Those evaluations cannot be completed in any useful form without the benchmark examination results from the 2004-05 school year. Those results are only now becoming available. LRSD has no authority over the grading or reporting of benchmark examination scores. Those things are entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 4 Finally, whether or not the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals relieves LRSD of its future obligations under the compliance order, LRSD has contracted for four Step 2 evaluations which have been substantially completed. LRSD intends to receive completed evaluations in accordance with its contracts with Drs. Ross and Catterall and to use the evaluations to help judge the effectiveness of the academic programs which are the subjects of the evaluations. Question No. 5: Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? Response: The motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in response to question four above, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, including the letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall. If the motion is denied, LRSD would be compelled to file the evaluations immediately. even though they would contain no analysis of the benchmark results and consequently would not be of much use in evaluating the effectiveness of academic programs. Drs. Ross and Catterall would be extremely reluctant to have their work publicized before they had the chance to complete the evaluations by incorporating and analyzing the results of the benchmark exams. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Zs/ Christopher Heller 4Case 4
82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3945 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 RECEIVED October 5, 2005 OCT 6 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel
A hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7,2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature of the hearing will be entered forthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings
so please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM.RECEIVED OCT 11 20115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE In the June 30, 2004 Order, I held that the LRSD had again failed to comply the desegregation obligations in 2.7.1 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.' This Order, in part, reads: The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2004.^ At the risk of being redundant, I entered a July 26, 2004 Order which read: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do.^ Late on September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline. LRSD filed a Motion to Extend Time to submit the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 'A September 13, 2002 Order held that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations except those contained in 2.7.1. ^Doc. No. 3875. Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 1school year. Because of uncompleted tasks, LRSD requested an extension until January 2006 to submit the evaluations. To date, the motion has not been granted and no evaluations have been fded. Accordingly, LRSD and its counsel are directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005 and show cause, if any there be, why they should not be held in contempt of court (civil) for violating the June 30, 2004 Order ~ specifically, the directive to file the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October 1, 2004. With respect to LRSDs Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSDs Response to Order filed on October 4, 2005, LRSD and its counsel are directed to also show cause, if any there be, why they should not be sanctioned, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the representations and omissions contained in these two documents. Among others, I would like for the following to appear, some of them to give testimony: A representative from the ODM
Dr. Karen DeJamette
Dr. James S. Catterall
Dr. Steven M. Ross
Dr. Jim Wohleb
Each member of the Little Rock School District School Board
Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District
The persons at the Arkansas Department of Education who oversee benchmark examinations
Such other person as any party may want to call as a witness. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the LRSD is directed to file a list of the witnesses who it will call at the hearing (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused 2by the Court). Within ten (10) days after the LRSD provides its witness list, Joshua must file its witness list (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused by the Court). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 31010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:<494232@ared.uscourts.gov> Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al "Order to Show Cause" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.<!- rcsid='\$Header: /ecf/district/html/TextHead,V 3.1 2003-04-25 07:56:43-04 loy Exp \$' U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/6/2005 at 4:23 PM CDT and filed on 10/6/2005 #ident 'rcsid=\$Header: /ecf/district/server/TextBody,v 3.1 2003-04-25 07:52:35-04 loy Exp \$' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3948 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?394 8, 2 6052,,MAGIC, Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 11/7/2005 08:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom #431 before Judge William R. Wilson Jr. LRSDs Witness List Due by 5 P.M. 10/12/05
Joshua witness list due 10 days after. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/6/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/6/2005] [FileNumber=494231-0] [4646454cc4bl35abdb59d2a8725c86222adf016dafacc9cl63al7c4660244fe41e95a3f7826fca4 10e22clf65bbdab9c82f54fe63aa303249d72d80de59f8d3a]] <! rcsid='\$Header: /ecfZdistrict/server/TextAtyList,v 3.2 2003-06-02 17:37:56-04 bibeau Exp \$' > 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@inbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us, Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fee.net
tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com. kate.jonesS jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com
jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers S Sneddon, PLLCCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Pagel of3 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 LRSDS WITNESS LIST For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7,2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 2. Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 & Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 & Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 6. Dr. Roy Brooks Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 7. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 8. All witnesses listed by other parties and witnesses who may be necessary to provide rebuttal testimony Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge & Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 12, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 3RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER i Pending is LRSDs Motion to Excuse Dr. James Caterall (Doc. No. 3951) from the November 7,2005 Hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. However, Dr. Caterall must provide Mr. Heller with a phone number where he can be reached, if necessary, the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fl- 1Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_supportgared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:<504296@ared.uscourts.gov> Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al "Order on Motion for Order" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2005 at 4:01 PM CDT and filed on 10/20/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3953 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3953,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005214 Docket Text: ORDER granting [3951] Motion for Order to excuse Dr James Caterall from 11/7/05 hearing. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/20/05. (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/20/2005] [FileNumber=504295-0] [4b2f98b5ddl9c8ac9280f4eaf8bb25dc3f01ed0ec0146298ffebef5b9ee992dl8df64af85b5cc32 dce34e54ebb7f6e2f592c6d7bf2628da7d0c5605el7f75c42] ] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, beleda.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net
ttniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com
jspringerggabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense S Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson StreetSuite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818
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.