{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1769","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1769"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    U,/63/2666 10: 51 5016045321 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 40481 Filed 10/02/2006 PAGE 01 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATiiERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District states: ~1\\-\u0026lt;9t00 F~ PLAINTIFF oEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INTERVENORS 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 2005-06 school year. The progress of those evaluations !las been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 15, 2006. ' 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21st Century Community Learning Centers and Read 180, were previously delayed due to the unavailability of Benchmark Examination results, but it now appears that those evaluations will be filed by the current due date of October 15~ 2006. Sec email from lt,/t,::l/ 2f:l06 10; 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 02 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 4 Aaron McDonald, attached as Exhibit A. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Lileracy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. The NORMES data proved not to be sufficiently detailed to meet the evaluators' needs for the Pre-K Literacy Evaluation, and LRSD has contracted with Riverside Publishing to provide that data. PRE is now in the process of working with Riverside in an effort to get usable QELI data to CREP within the next few days. 4. Dr. Ross, in an email which was provided to the Court on September 29, 2006, says that CREP \"will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete [ the PreK Literacy] Report by November 15th .\" 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to insure the delivery of a useful Pre-K Literacy Program Evaluation 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. 6. Mr. Walker's letter to the Court of September 26, 2006 indicates that he understands the need for the requested extension, but counsel for LRSD was unable to 2 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 3 of 4 contact him today to confirm that. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of time within which it must file the draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program to and. including November 15, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 2, 2006, I 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.qr.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj .com johnwaJkeratty@aol_.com 3 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 4 of 4 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  Isl Christopher Heller 4 l t:l/ t:J;j/ :Lt:lt:lb l !:I: 51 5016045321 US0C PAGE 05 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 ~ 1 of 4 Chris Heller - .RE: three evatuatfoas From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Chris, \u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphls.edu\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fcc.net\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 9:16 AM RE: three evaluations \u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; ~ a follow-up to our phone conversation on Friday, I wanted to let you know that we are-planning on sending the drett READ 180 and 21.t CCLC reports to the dlsbid on the 1st\". The 21 st CCLC sd1ool that had attendance data anomallee will be excluded from the anafyaia. We are still In the procesa of revleWtng the PreK deta wttt, Jim Wohlleb. Beatrrd, Aaron McOoneld ......... ____________ .....-____ -_______ l'l'Offll Steven M Ross (sml'0$S) Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:39 PM To: Chris Heller Cc: Aaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmatnld) - subject: RE: three evaluations Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, 'IN 38152-3340 file://C:\\Document5%20and%20Settina\\Brendak\\Local%20Settinas\\Temo\\GWl00002;H... 10/1./2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURJAECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarto/,lY Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously. filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua  Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; tq ,have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a . highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 ' ' by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September l, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the . Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year.. Id. As part .of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hmng a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.'~ The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating . a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting - within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the ' . . LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LR.SD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross .and Catterall. 19. LR.SD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LR.SD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LR.SD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated ;. during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross - assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight fonnal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-q6 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be fonnally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2. 7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. Sept~mber 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools . throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step  2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. fu each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate . number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements ofparagraphE of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the -eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary ofLRSD's commitments to the modifications - recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance.Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM . and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of.the_ eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update; p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive  program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. The~e quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December l, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LR.SD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 - LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status .. of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided - them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for  the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance wjth extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluatiohs for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD' s substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 m accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Clrristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I 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: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com iohnwalkeratty@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 - JudgeJ.ThomasRay U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 .\u0026lt;?_t 3Q _ . Career Objective: Prefeuional Experience: 1998-Prcaent Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Prof ess.lonally Related Activities: Danyell CrutchfleJd Cummlnp S Ben Hopn Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 7221G (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progrcssi ve educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Ens]iah Tcacbor !. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervi:iion, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R.Qck Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator CoW1cil of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225--$439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (,Ol) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)666-621_6 home Filed 10/16/2006 ~~1:1 .. ~ ?..! . .O.I. ~0 . ____Ca_se_ _4:8_2-_cv-_00 866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~ge 22 ~!}0_ _ ,. .. _______ , . ., .. _ , _________ , Career Objective: Profeuioul Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prcscnt Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Profea,Jonally Related ActMdes: Danyell CrutcbReld Cumminp 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkanau 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environmmt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master ofEducatioo, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R~k Acting Assistant Principal Section S04 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 P_9ge g~_qf 30 . References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (S0l) 447 ... 300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SO 1) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (S01) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 81 Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the  flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and -~s compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines- . while maintaining high performance.  Proven Reliability This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. I. EXHIBIT I ______-.; ;;__i 13----~ LRSD BI Tools ....!,____ .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which hot1ses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided fo the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise - Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key  Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications.   The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBIToou Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users ( e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. Tiris greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles  Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An lRSD Bl Tools Pnge J o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a .Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is   then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Pag~4of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs.  CLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp\u0026lt;;mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive. Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that  .recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless.  . Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Too/3 Page6of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intellj,gence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology pro:Vides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Toois Page 7 o/7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 o 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4048) is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD's draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger \u0026amp;-kansas Attorney General ' s Office Wi,tlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 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. Th ompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewel lyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts . gov A:~~age-Id :\u0026lt;767706@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; ~ bject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pul aski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Extend Time \" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid l ater 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 10/19/2006 at 9 : 55 AM CDT and filed on 10/18/2006 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . a red . us courts. gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl ?2 6052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume nt Number : 4053 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the d ocument : http : //ecf . ared. uscourts . gov/cgi-bin /show_case_ doc?4053 , 26052 , , MAGIC ,,, 2005489 Docket Text: ORDER granting [4048] Motion to Extend Time ; LR$D ' s draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m. , Wednesday, November 15 , 2006 . Signed by Judge William R. Wi lson Jr. on 10/18/06 . (mkf, ) The following documen t (s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a a lectronic document Stamp : - STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date= l 0/19/2006] [FileNumber=767705-0] [b3ec8779c91ae546773eb22665c07b6afe5b 95858074548ablf66cdblb0e7c7bcafb4796bdlde8a 537ae2ba51becd736a5c7340c96eeef5323b45b8d3lb59545]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R . Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark . hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, a ngela . dover@arkan sasag.gov Christopher J. He ller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net ; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj . com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast . net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabriel mail.com -4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 Qffl:Eff llUBATIONIO'-IU\"\"\"maG-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINEKNIGHT,ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT  For its Re;,visectC0mpliance'Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio,  have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the r~sponsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. . I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding fo 1 th,e PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed . the :resting Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, . 2p96 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he . approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded :i coII1prehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to 'supP.ort its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14; The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis_trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 _Qll;arterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of' planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit . B, to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD 's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluat~d by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. 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. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated _ during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally. F-Y~uated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December L: 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluatio:q.s must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-Americ~ students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See Jun~, 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the reConm,iended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE ..  . notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June I, and September I of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006; June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided t11:~m to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 ~choo~ year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.   40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 schooi year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to aJ?:d including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I 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 sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 Career ObJecttve: Pnd'euJonaJ Experience: 2004-PIOSCD! 1998-Proent Edacadon: Danyell Crufchffeld CuDIIDIDil S Bm Hopn Cove Little Rock. ArbDIU 7211G {501) 407-8497 (501) 447-1737 To utillzo proven academic and profoaiOJW oxpienco to obtain a . : , chUcrnging po1itioa as an admiailltrator that will allow fer growth and an opportuni1)' to contribute to . proareqivo educatiooal environmcm. High Schools That Wo'fk Ccordinafor J. A. Fair Sytcml Magnet Higb School Little Rock. Arbmas 72210 Randy Rlahc,dord, Principal Bqliah Tcadior 1. A. Fair Symim Masaet Hi\u0026amp;h Sohool Little .Rookt Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthafo:d, Principel May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educ.atiou.l Administration and Supcmion, University of .Amnsas at Little Rock Docomba', 199! Muter of Education, Scoondary Edue\u0026amp;tioo. Univel'lfty of Aibmal at Utde Ro\" May, 1997 Bichel of Ans, English, Univc:rafty of Arlamsu at Little Rook ProtN.lloPally .R.elattcl .Acdvitfa: Actina Aasiatant 'Principal Scetioa 504 Coordinator Council ofSecondaey Edacatlon Slakcbolder Southern Realoaal Education Board U\u0026amp;eracy Team mombcr Teacher oftbe Year Bdu(lational Spul!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ----- -------- ..  --- --. -. - Refcreuca: Linda Young Granta Coo.rdilultor (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-$439 home Till Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Bl.cmcutary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Hearillg . (SO]) 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cawcy, EdJ\u0026gt; Assistant Prin0ipal  1.A. Fair Syscems Magnet High School (SOl) 447-1700 ~ 1710 work (501)6~6-6216 homo Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 . Page 22 of 30 -------- \"------~----------- Educailon: DaayeU Crutchfilld Cummlap 5 Bea Hogan Cove Llttle Rock, Aruu,u 72210 (501) 407--8897 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and p-ofossional cxpericncc lo obcain a   ' challenging position u an administrator that will allow (or growth and an opportunity to contnl,utc w a pl'OjJ'Cluivc educational onvinimncut. High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Pair Sy1lcms Mapet Hlgb School Little Jlgok, Arb.mu 72210 Randy Rutherford. Principal EnsJish Tcachet J. A. Fair Syn:ms Magnet Bish School Littlo Rode, Arwsu 12210 Randy Ruthcrford,_Priuclpal May, 2005 Educational Spec!llist, Educational Administration and SUpezviaio,; University of Arbnsa1 at Little R.oclc D'\"mber, 1998 , M..t ofBducatioa, Sooonday ROJCation, Univonlty of Arbasas at Little Rook May, Im Bachelor of Art,, Bnglllh, l'rvleu!onaDy Rtlated ActMtlu: University of Arkansai at Little Rode ActiJJa Auismit Prillcipll Section 504 Comlioator Couocil of Secondary Education S1akcboldet Southom Regional Bducatioa Board Lkenlcy Team member Teacher oflhe Year BduoadOllll Spoclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ .. ,, .. ---- llercraca: LindaY01111g Gram Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 homo mi Brooks PrincJpal David O'Dodd Elementary (-'01) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Bt0adnlx, Bd,D Student Hearinl (501) 447.3532 work (501)4-07.0817 homo SbaroD Cauley, Bd.I) Aasiatant .Principal J.A. Fair S)'ICcml ~ot High School (501)4471700 c:xt. 1710 W0C'k (SOI) 666-621.6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The Bl Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofB[ tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability aod Hlgll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, mM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platfonn, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability .is a key issue. Business Objccta Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters ofmachineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platfomi _:_:_~_/'/i_~_m_ee_t_th_e_n_ced__o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_c_R_oc_k_S_c_hoo_l_D_is_tn_c_t-to_da_y_an_d_to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ___,.( _I _B _EXHI_M _r ) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system arc a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Nonnalized Data This data. securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority ofti,.e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligenco products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporttnz aUows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objccta Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required .knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is pcrfonncd using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Perfonnance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. CrystaJ Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LBSDB/To1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can dciign within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage crossplatform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports arc easily published to the web, for better busip.ess decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be e,cported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powa-ful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic apd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain natic prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily ma1ce their own document modifications. Report Ewort Copflguntlon . The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula cm\u0026gt;rs, and dependency i,sues. Thia greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Buslness Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data soun:es and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level secwity processes. An LIISD Bl Tool# Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional sc:rvicc in Crystal Enterprise, Busim:ss Views aUow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by ~ulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business Viow in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Conncctipns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fo1D1dation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily ro-use various components of .one Busmcss View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can acrve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rocle School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that arc NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of diff ercnt reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters aIJd map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report de.sign based on a Business View will respect tho underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator e-0ntext) and then filter the report every time a user views it All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. UISDBITPou Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-conswning and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, cluipging fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthe same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store ~nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects .Enterprise InfoVfew Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infoID1ation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web lntelllgence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And reque\u0026amp;ts to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users tum educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved. and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root cawes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntellf gence Busin=is Objects OLAP Intelligaice is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced amlysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform I.RSD II Tool, Pq,So/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP . The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis QI.AP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to selcct-dimep.sions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OL.AP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rieb Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering. highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an 1D1cluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hlde specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of.breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, WM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbasc 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Dlstn'\"bution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and worldlows, Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to B.usJoess Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workoook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perfomi advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powezful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Emloratlon LJISD BJ TOIIU Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that usen can navigate and exj:)lore-.summariz.ed infoonation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelli~t navigation without the need to understand the complexities of widerlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBJTooJ, l'qa7o/7 uFILi=o -.-, E4sret DISrRt~ co   .: IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT AA~SAs -} EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER  DCT27 2CQ; .: JA~ M By~\u0026lt;~~~~.gL,,_ ~AINTIFF\"2:Jge',i, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC'') for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2005-2006 school ~ear and proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 28, 2006 ( attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the MRC's final budget for the 2005-2006 school year and proposed 2006-2007 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ay of October, 2006. A1~  -:::::::;;2.-\u0026lt;---- ~ DISTRICT JUDGE Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} September 28, 2006 The Honorable W11Iiam R. Wllson. Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Judge Wtlson: On September 26, 2006, Marte Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the actual expenditures for 2005-06, as well as the proposed budget for the 2006-07 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was presented to MRC members for their review on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of 6-0, approved the final budget (actual expenditures) for the 2005-06 school year but are withholding their vote for approval of the proposed 2006-07 budget until all parties have been given the opportunity to review the proposed budget. The Magnet Review Committee has scheduled their next meeting for October 17, 2006 to vote on the proposed budget at that time. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Court for approval: FINAL 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $28,849,578 .00, was based on a per-pupil expenditure of$7,468.00, calculated from a projected three quarter average enrollment of 3,862.90 students. Once the actual attendance (3,831.12) and expenditure ($29,224,702.00) numbers were determined, the final per pupil amount was calculated to be $7,628.00, which was $160.00 more than originally budgeted. This increased cost is primarily attributable to the adjustments in the school funding formula as a result of the recent Lakeview decision. A Funding By Source schedule is shown on Page 2 of the attachment presenting the costs allocated to each of the four ( 4) parties. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson. Jr. September 28, 2006 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2005-2006 finalized budget in the amount of $29,224,702.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $7,628.00, attached herewith. Even though the budget Draft 2 contains figures for the proposed 2006-2007 budget, the Magnet Review Committee is not asking the Court's approval at this time. The proposed 2~2007 budget will be submitted to the Court after representatives ftom each party bring their recommendations to the Magnet Review Committee meeting on October 17, 2006.   .. , The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sJ Attachment: Final 2005-2006 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget Actual Expenditures (Draft 2) -..oc: Office ofDesegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee '.:- : ;;:~r~;..;1~:[~~~:m ~~~:~v~r:~ti:m 1:r:~~ !~~~~~m~: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $577,006 $590,057 6.0 $605,528 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $704,187 $719,586 10.0 $739,257 03 Soecialists 40.2 $2,060,208 $2,095,071 40.2 $2,178,546 04 Counselors 13.5 $745,758 $755,548 13.5 $819,990 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $333,386 $342,566 6.5 $369,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $135,929 $138,721 3.0 $147,146 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Forei~in Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.9 $442,679 $452,002 7.9 $506,912 10 Soecial Education 15.5 $621,519 $624,198 16.5 $700,071 11 Gifted 5.4 $296,023 $302,527 6.4 $353,735 12 Classroom 202.9 $9 892,360 $10,105,508 201 .9 $10,247,836 13 Substitutes o.o $293,000 $347,950 0.0 $310,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $729,204 $782,522 15.0 $772,934 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 325.9 $16,831,258 $17,256,256 326:9 $17,751,721 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $621,784 $640,002 21.4 $686,358 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $273,520 $280,670 6.0 $292,918 17 Custodians 28.9 $572,555 $576,668 28.9 $612,444 18 Information Seivices 1.0 $65 554 $66,547 1.0 $68,780 19 Paraorofessionals-Other 4.0 $176,869 $182,943 3.0 $163,884 20 Other-Aides 26.0 $490,064 $474,617 28.2 $560,984 21 FrinoeBenefits(20 \"' $0 $5,189,424 '''''' \"'  $5,830,809 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.3 $7,744,958 $7,410,871 88.5 $8,216,177 TOTAL(10-20l ,    ,,,, ,,, $24576,216 $24,667,128  $25967,898 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ' -- .,., $ 589 700 $ 719,885 .,., ., \" ,, , ' $798 500 SERVICES 1-2::::3:-+.:T:-\"ra\"'\"v\"\"'e:-\"I- -------fiii.:. i.'m- \"m:~: /  $ 40,000 $ 46,655 ' .. , ., , ., . $35,500 po) 24 Maintenance Aareements . ~ - _:, $0 $0 , --~ ,. .... , $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ' CAPITAL OUTLAY (50} OTHER (60) 25 Other '  ' $ 285 368 $ 259,970 '-' \" ,, :: ' $237, 130 TOTAL(30) 26 Princioal's Office 27 Regular Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equioment 31 Buildina Reoalr etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other -. . $ 915,068 $ 1 026510 \"\"'':'\"''\" $ 1071,130 ;:~ : !~:E~ : a:::E ltll s::~:~ ., ._,, ,, ''  $ 24,273 $ 27,819  .\";w. '. $ 28,873 \"'\" $ 881,653$ 916,962 ''.:' . . , .... '. $ 749,125  , \" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 :--,. ' ' $ 57 200 ,  . , . , '' '' $0 $0 .,  , ... , '' '\" . $0 ., ....... ... , ., $0 $0 .,,. ,, $0 '.\"''\" .: , \";\" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 : $ 57,200  : . ,.,, , $ 7,800 $ 3,390 , $ 4,856 .. ,., '  . - . $0 $0 ' '  \"., ....... ' $0 TOTAL (60) '' .,., \"'  ,,.,, $ 7,800 $ 3,390 \"\" \"\" \"'  $ 4,856 TOTAL (30-60) =-~,~t- ~r ~i  - $ 1,874,836 $ 2 161 988 S 1,882,311 TOTAL (10-60} 413.1 $ 26,451,052 $ 26,829,116 415.3 $ 27,850,209 ro.TAL LINE ITEMs ttl~~~!~=~irAU\\llt~l~Ji,fJ:: - ri,: 1111~~:;i:~;:: i1:;:it1:iJ;: 1:;;;,;, ,.,  :?::;::: r: mi~~i:,i MAGBK07A ~i,i~ijf~ttt'hJ,~f,',f~J iftte.1Q~1stl ~if #fJf4t~Iit;l~:tl~ ij~f : .' :~~~:.:, ,,,. ,'ij ~rb:fi;iai,Vk~ii~~~I~tm4ll~l~t~~-i~ 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 Stipends $29,600 $52 951 $41,250 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $2,194,000 $2 227,287 $2,312,522 Vocational $32,800 $32,712 $32,800 Athletics $101,626 $60,936 $65,799 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $13,201 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1,500 $1.500 Soecial Education $4,000 $4,000 ~ .000 Curriculum $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 )00()()()( )()()()00( Total Line Items $2,398,526 $2,395,586 $2 492,871 Rii.!;:_ : .:~t~~~-i li~P~t -_' .. : .}  ..:~ ~!~ ,862.90 3 3,831.00 E~~J~'.B~'.~~i~!$(1!~liji ~1~.t~~~'f.\\i~r, rb':iiM~af.lJt,11i): f~Ji:ieffi'~ ~l~ $'.!i~m'.Billl.:!J,~tt1~:if~~~!~i)]@!)~. 2005-06 2005-06 2006--07 Slate of Arkansas $14 424 069 $14,611,930 $15,171,275 LRSD $9,248,057 $9,260,815 $9,614,975 PCSSD $3 443,532 $3,567,768 $3,704,342 NLRSD $1 733,920 $1,784,189 $1,852,488 Total Costs $28,849,578 $29,224,702 $30,343,080 MAGBK07A - t0~~1J~ l~l~~t(~S~h}fm! O!t~t~fsll.t:i~ (i'.,i${%\\:.t; 1!:l';b,,6~~ ~~~i~{ij)pt(l~}\\,fmfi _ ;.,p.r.~ei~t1ik~i~~~iw JWt~~~a~Ht.;}:a,, ~tf'~I::~ r~~~ffiJ.tiojii1:iJtttJ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,186 $ 95 068 1.0 S 97,930 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 70,837 $ 72,120 1-0 $ 74,401 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 405 782 $ 419,228 8.0 $ 434,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 107,304 S 109,708 2.0 S 115,886 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $ 59,967 S 67,117 1.5 $ 70,377 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational . 0.0 0.0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 51,587 $ 52,678 1.0 $ 11 Gifted 77,720 $ 78,956 1.4 $ 12 Classroom 937,752 $ 949,474 21 .5 $ 13 Substitutes $ 38,000 s \"45,797 0.0 $ 14 other-KinderQarten 246,467 $ 254,281 5.0 S TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $2,088,601 $2, 144 426 42.4 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 82,152 $ 84,582 3.0 $ STAFF 16 Nurses 41,328 $ 42,204 1.0 $ 17 Custodians 75,503 $ 74,193 4.0 $ 18 Jnfonnation SeMoes 10,928 $ 11 ,093 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-other $0 $0 I 0.0 20 other-Aides 97,165 $ 92,145 5.2 $ 21 708,611 $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1 ,015,687 $1,009,939 13. TOTAL(10-20) '\" ,,,. $3,104,289 $3,154,365 ., ... , ._,._, 58,500 $ 7,000 $ $0 PURCHASED Z2 Utilities  .. $$ 69,185 ,, \" .,. ,~ $ SERVICES 23 Travel 14,276  ,.,. ,. \"  $ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 .,, ...... '.\"'.  25 other . . : _. $ 30,013 $ 29,566 ., .,,, '  - $ TOTAL(30) ' , ' $ 95,513 $ 113,027 _,,., ,, ., $ i--,-MA-:-:-::TE=R.,.,IAL,..,..,,S,.., ..,...,26=-t::p,-ri,..nci\"\"'i-p,a\"\"'r,..s-=o\"'ffi:-ce-\"-''--~----m! $0 ;, '\"~\":'. : . SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom \" . -~ $ (40) i-;2~8+M;;;edw,;i;.;;a:;;,_;;==~----f,, ~;r.,;,-t: '. $ 29 other '.' :', ... . '\"' $ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc: 32 other TOTAL(SO) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) .,,,.,,.,-,: :': : ', $ __ ,,; ._,.,,,., $ ,.: ; P'V ;.,, . . ~ ....... ..  .. ,. -; .. , ... ,,,, $ :ii,;,}~ $ ,, ,.,,., ,, '. $ 55.6 $0 77,500 7,500 3,125 88,125 8,500 $0 $0 8,500 1,000 $0 1,000 $193,138 $3,297,427 $293,462 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77,766 '\" '.:'/\"? '' $ 4,915 . ,, $ 4,206 ,_::: .... :. $ 86,888 \"  \"   $ 2,747 '.  ::''.' $ $0 : ,:: ' ' '' $0 .... ,, -\",, ,; 2,747 .: .. : ' __ ' $ 680 , , . '.',' ' $ $0 ::\"'~ -~, 680 :~:'.'. ' \" ,,,. $ $203,342  ' ,... ,. '. ' $3,357,707 55.8 $298,017 ,,,, ................ ,,., 55,473 82,401 912,879 45,000 282,919 $2,171,558 89,904 44,784 81,606 11,466 $0 102,011 739,450 $1,069,220 $3,240 778 75 800 5000 $0 20,113 100,913 $0 87,057 5,500 3,827 96,384 6,000 $0 $0 6,000 1,000 $0 1,000 $204,297 $3,445,075 $314,693 ~ ~~l~*r,{l~~fifi';t.'t{~,,~m~1t 2005-06 2005--06 2006--07 Stipends $4,250 $5,336 $8,750 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $283,903 $269,788 $300,610 Vocational $0 $0 . $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $133 $134 $134 Plant Services $4141 $1,716 $4,160 Reading $85 $65 $85 Science SO $0 SO Enqlish $194 $195 $195 Special Education $518 $520 $520 Curriculum $259 $260 $260 )00()()()( XXXlOOC Total Line Items $293,462 $298,017 $314,693 655 724 $3,759,769 - ~ -ffC!~~$jI 1:tit~~1ff'l)${11JirmwR IJtil'~llU@J~m,;:~;f))i ]1!'.~ ~ i. ii~~}~'M1rrt~~~ - WF;tTs~ ri \\7,~~~~ri;,'p~~t{1I1tmmt~iiU\\tm,f\u0026gt;f~ 'i'*~i1:~ ~g~P,ffi~mi$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,172 $ 96,557 1.0 $ 97,781 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 329,753 $ 291,812 6.8 $ 330,833 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 53,465 $ 56,201 1.0 $ 57 448 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 61,583 $ 63 000 1.0 $ 64,947 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 0.0 o.o 08 FOfeign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 0.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 68,322 $ 69 765 1.5 S 73,956 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 55 932 1-0 $ 57,557 12 Classroom 16.2 $ 728,828 $ 719,117 152 $ 703,820 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28000 $ 27,763 0.0 $ 25000 14 Other-Kinder\u0026lt;1arten 2.0 $ 105,715 $ 106 393 98,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SAL.ARY 30.5 $1,523 399 $1486541 $1,509,680 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 30,736 $ 27 792 1.4 $ 33,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 34 548 $ 36,886 1.0 $ 39,046 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 67,314 $ 68,316 3.0 $ 70,869 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,928 $ 11,093 0.2 $ 11,466 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.3 $ 60,630 $ 65,456 4.3 $ 62,761 21 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 9.9 $714,972 $676,423 9.9 $730,034 TOTAL (10-20\\ ... ,. $2,238 372 $2,162,963 ,, ' : ' _ $2,239,714 PURCHASED 22 Utllities ... . :: .  $ 34 000 $ 47,642 '\" ' \" ,,.,.. $ 49,000 SERVICES 23 Trawl ~:.:;,..,_,. $ 7 000 $ 12 457 ' ,, $ 5,000 (30} 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ' :iciii'' $0 $0 ,, H-.-: $0 25 MATERIALS, 26 ~:::: . ~:Ill. .~:;: ~ : :  ' \" $ 35 8~~ $ 40 :,~ . ::' :~ ,,, ' $ 36,:S Other .....  ' $ l-,----c==.,,...,...,,,.,_.,....,,..,,4,,,-,--,---,,-.:.'f.,:::O,:..:TA..::L:..J(..::;30;;,Jl\\:._ _ -m_ :: Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) $ 2,500 $ 1 604 \"' \" ~'. ' ,...  $ 2,500 $ 1,953 $ 2581 \" '\"' _.,,. $ 3,174 $ 40,253 $ 45,091 . . .  $ 42,262 EQuipment '..: ' ,,. $ 16,904 $ 141288 ' \"\" ,,  , $ 11,500 Building Repair, etc. .,.,,  /'! ,, . $0 $0 i ' ~ ~ 1 .~ $0 {50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 ---=-,.,....,..=---.---+Oth-,----er---=T_O_TA_L_(._50__.1)~..-.-.,1\". ...... ....- -.. $$ 16,~ $ 141,2: ~ ~'~ $ 11,5: Dues and Fees 1,000 $ 499 '.'.::.~ .. \u0026gt; $ 500 Other . . ... . $0 $0    :':' : $0 TOTAL(60) ,.,  , \"  s 1,000$ 499 , .. ,, .,.,  , $ 500 TOTAL (30-60) ' : ..  ' $127,057 $269,824 ' ... .. ,, ,~ $132,000 TOTAL (10-60) 40.4 $2,365,429 $2,432,788 39.4 $2,371,714 TOTALUNEITE    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1766","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-07/2006-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Magnet schools","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1766"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for extension of time and motion for Little Rock School District (LRSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     lllcc,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIL CO EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  J. 8 2006 WESTERN DIVISION tr; ~F!/Ct o,  11011 M01111t:J,,.,._ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLA~ 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 2005- 06 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 June 1, 2006. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2006. 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180, cannot be completed without an electronic file of individual student results from the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2005-06 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until late July or early August. LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once the data is received by PRE. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Literacy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. NORMES recently announced that the posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. PRE now expects to provide the QELI database to Dr. Ross by early August. 4. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that they will be able to deliver draft program evaluations within six to eight weeks after receiving the benchmark and QELI data. The draft evaluations must then be reviewed and finalized in accordance with LRSD' s evaluation policy. Letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful program evaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to 2 continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2007-08 school year. 6. LRSD has contacted counsel for the Joshua Intervenors concerning this Motion and was informed that the Joshua Intervenors would like to take additional time to consider their response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file Draft Step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year to and including October 15, 2006, and an extension of the time within which it must file final Step 2 program evaluations to and including November 17, 2006. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK . Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar No. 81083) 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller 3 CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICE I certify that on July 18, 2006, I 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.hagerneier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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. 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 A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller 4- JUL.25.2006 4:56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0.473 P.2 Case 4:82.cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Flied 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN nm UNUED STATES DIS'IRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKICOUNTYSPECIALSCHOOL . DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR. LRSD To SHQW CAUSE Come now the Joshua Intcrvenors who respectfully oppose the little Rock School District Motion to Extend Time and Motion For LRSD To Show Cause. On July 19, 2006, the court directed counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to promptly respond to the LR.SD s Motion for Extension of Time in which to file its Step 2 evaluations with the court now due Cl1 October 1, 2006. Three reasons ~ set forth by LRSD counsel: a) test data from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) will not be available for expert use prior to late July, 2006 with respect to three of the four programs beini evaluated; b) test data from the ADE regarding the fourth program will not be available until early August; and c) after receipt of the describ~ data, experts Drs. Ro$ and Catterall will need betWecn six and eight weeks 1D  prepare their draft repo~. Joshua opposes the LRSD s Motion for Extension of Time. 1oslma also submits that the LRSD Superintc:odent, Roy Brooks, and the IRSD as an entity, are in i. - --- - - - JUL.~~.Z006 4=56PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.473 P.3 Case 4:82-cv-00866--WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/2512006 Page 2 of 6 contempt of court for violating ex.press and implicit directives of the court. Joshua submit, the following additional reasons for their request for Hearing filed June 21, 2006 and for the district to be required to show cause. 1. The court s attention is directed to thr.ee previol.1$ orders which it entered: a) Order dated May 21, 1993; b) Order dated June 30, 2004; and c) Order dated November 29\", 2005. 2. In the Order dated May 21, 1993. the cou:tt compelled the LR.SD to consult with Joshua prior to making desegregation plan altercations. The compliance remedy constitutes an express des~egation plan obligation. Joshua contends that LRSD senior administrators Superintendent Roy Brooks, Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh, and Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts have directed the PRE staff on many occasions to have no cont.act with Joshua reguding PRE compliance remedy activities. The Superintendent s directive t.O the PRE Director Deiamette and hCl' staff was to thwart Joshua s ability to oblain infonnation. In makini known his intention not t.O allow substantive Joshua participation in the evaluation process, on information and belief, Dr. Roy Brocic.s dizcctly threatened to tcrmiDate the employment of Dr. DeJamcttc and her three statisticians if they collaborated and/or communicated with Joshua. He did this on more than one occasion. 3. The above stated LRSD senior officials have refused. to consult with Joshua insofar as the directed evaluation and assessIJ1ell.t process are concerned. This is in contrast to their regular consultations with the ODM monitors. 4. Joshua has souiht to obtain information about PR.E activity regarding plan ,implementation. When information has been requested by Joshua, LRSD has dela}'Cd the production of such information. On the other hand, when ODM requests certain data, UpOn 2 JUL ,25 . 2006 4 : 56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0. 473 P.4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 6 - infonnation and belief: it is provided to the ODM without delay. In order to secure information in a timely fashiou, Joshua counsel began requesting infonnation through use of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AF OJA). This was done not because of any litigation concept, but rather to be sure that information believed to be necessary to Joshua s monitoring function -was provided. On information and belie~ PRE staff has indicated !hat it would provide the information requested by Joshua but LRSD senior ~strators, acting on advice of counsel, have refuse to allow it. S. The court s compliance remedy of June 30, 2004 sets forth in a very specific manner LRSD s charged duties regarding its desegregation obligations. See Section 2. 7 and 2. 7. l of LRSD s 1998 Education Plan. The obligation of the district is to assess/evaluate kt; programs pursuant to Section 2. 7 designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students. The court further directed that the LRSD prepare Step 2 evaluations of key - 2. 7 programs. The LRSD s commitment was to take appropriate action in the form of either modifyina how the program is implemented or replacing the program. During an evaluation team meeting on or about April 18, 2006, the senior administrators of LRSD did not indicate that any of the alleged key programs evaluated for the 2004-200S school year \\Wuld be replaced or discontinued. However, on information and belief, the LRSD, through Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts, has indicated that the programs previously evaluated in compliance with the Court s order and those cUII\"ently being evaluated are not key programs. She has subsequently implemented nine new programs which she has identified as being key. One of the programs has , been assessed by PRE. If the propms previously evaluated or those currently being evaluated are not key programs, then this is another example of LRSD s noncompliance with the court s 3 - - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.S Page 4 of 6 order of June 30, 2004. It is important to note that the evaluation tasks ordered by the Court, or for that pUipose any programs undertake.n by the district are necessarily hampered by the unavailability of a competent database. 6. The court s June 30111 Order directed LRSD to permanently embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and ins~tion program. To that end. LRSD, on the initiative of Dr._ DeJamette, engaged Dr. Victoria Bernhardt as an expert. Her work and that of PRE have been and are being impeded by deficient, incompetent data from the I.RSD. This is due to LRSD s refusal to make the necessary financial commitment to obtain the necessary da1a base for Dr. Bernhard and PRE to perform their assessment and evaluation tasks. As of this date, LRSD is unable to make assessments or evaluations of key 2.7 programs whatever they are! LR.SD thus remains recalcitrant and resistive to appropriate professional implementation of the court c1irted re?11edy. Joshua notes again that the senior adminfar:rators ofLRSD continually - seek to undercut the court ordered compliance ~y. 7. The Order of November 29, 2005 required the LRSD to promptly inform the court and parties when it learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reasun. Joshua. as well as LRSD counsel, learned on June 13, 2006 that the LRSD could not meet eJCPected deadlines for filing Step 2 evaluations. Rather than request an extension of time as directed by the court, LRSD filed a status report on Jwie 28, 2006. See initial letters from the experts which are appended to the LRSD motion for extensiai of time. It is obvious that LRSD implored those letter writers to renew and slightly change the wording in their one month earlier , coirespondencc. See also the July letters from. the experts attached to the Motion for Extension ofTime. 4 ------- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.6 Page 5 of 6 8. Joshua submits that LR.SD s waiting for more than a month to inmrm the court that it needed an extension of time for the filing of required evaluations amounts to contempt of court. 9. The court is essentially faced with the same situation this year that it was faced with lastyeazwhen the court posed five questions to the LRSD. The answers ofLRSDare essentially the same now as then. This makes LRSD s conduct more deliberate and its .implementation evasive, dciiant_and in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Joshua respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order setting a bearing for LR.SD to show cause why it should not be held. in contempt of the previous court orders. Joshua further requests that the senior administrator, of LRSD be required to show cause why they should not be held in Contempt of Colin. Joshla request that the hearing on thi; motion be prompt, i.e., within the next two weeks. Respectfully submitted, /s/Jobn W. Walke,r __________ ___.John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 S0l-374-3758 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jo!,nwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 2si11 day of July, 2006 the follCJWini motion has been filed using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/Jobn W. WalJss: s JUL. ,:::, . a::Mb 4: !::\u0026gt;!:\u0026gt;1-'M JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: F\u0026lt;1X: Re: N0.473 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Artomey at Law 1723 Ero-adway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) J7.:f-3i58 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET '( {)6\"' b BO~ OM - Jf)1ra ti~ I -371.-t:J /1)0 P.1 Sender: J; /w, tJa.i /ur YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [_ _ (.including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIV$ ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501)\"374-3758\u0026gt;\" ---- - - --- The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomey privileged and confldenrinl inform~oo intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not rhe intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it ro the intended rei;ipienr, you nl'e hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying oftbis communication is strictly prohibited. !fyou. have received mis communication in.error, please immediate notify us by teleptlone, and remm the original message ro us at the above address via the U.S. Post.ii Service. Thanlc you. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OfflCEOF PLAINTIFnisEGREGATION ; oNITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 W'4fiHMW@fflfiltst1MfaffMffi'tRMkiWW :~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;:....';: ...... ., ' ~ . : ' ; :: ~ ~ l ' ... ._. . . ' - .~ ~ .:' ; I  .... ' . ~-' ~ - - . . '  -.H, .... ,--,..  ' - '  '~ ri~=~ i::t:r;-:1:~::- :- \\~t;;:,..=-:::-\"j -!.(.:.;_~\\.:~ ~-::;. ;:: r-1 1:. --:=.:T:t)fG..-- . - ,. ~:~ ~ ~~ ;- ,, '/~-~ ,.. ~  , . ~~!'~~:~-;-,-.} .~~: --?) ~ ,:,,:,\u0026gt;: ~~~ - ~:.J71 ,J_:~~._;~!}L~ Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered.by th\u0026amp;Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG _2_- 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS With considerable reluctance, LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4029) is GRANTED. It appears to me that the delay is occasioned by a third party which is not a party to this litigation. I find this frustrating, but I do not believe I have authority to enjoin the third party to move more expeditiously -- even if a hearing revealed that its delay is not based upon good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE e . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. AUG 2 - 2006 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOHITOffiNG ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Joshua's Motion for a Hearing and Motion for LRSD to Show Cause (Doc. No. 4018) are DENIED for the time being. According to Joshua's allegations, the lawyer's for LRSD have failed confer with Joshua's lawyers even after requests for consultation. I make no finding on this allegation, but in the interest of keeping this case on track I direct that counsel for both parties \"meet and confer\" forthwith, with a representative or representatives of the ODM present. Concerns of Joshua's counsel should be fully aired at this meeting. If the lawyers for these parties cannot agree upon a \"meet and confer'' date, time, and place, they are directed to advise me by fax-letter no later than 5 p.m., this Friday, August 4, 2006. In other words, the date, time, and place is to be agreed upon before 5 p.m. this Friday. The \"meet and confer'' session(s) should be held soon thereafter. The ODM should report to me as soon as reasonably possible after the \"meet and confer'' session(s). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 28 United States Court of Appealf - - . FILED ::.--: EAsT U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ERH DISTRICT ARKANSAS Allf, IO 2006 No. 04-2923 -~MES W.~3; CLERK Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, v. Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official .Capacity as a Merribei'ofthe Board of Education of the Little Rock * * * * * * *   * * * * * *  * DEPCLERK I I I I / Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 28 School District, A Public Body; George * Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D. Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and . . * in his Official Capacity as a member of  * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2-   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 28 The Little Rock School District(LRSDfapp:e,a, from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary (status. We affinn. ' I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. I, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-47 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, - 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the di_strict court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed _that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-200 I school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the  Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 28 Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into subs~ntial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong. 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 and the2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- - ' r. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 28 II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD \"partially unitary with regard to all . aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with all sections of the  Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. 7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2. 7 .1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. ofEduc. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 28 gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( l) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. IT People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d l 073, l 076 (7th Cir. 200 l) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we ex~ine LRSD' s compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 28 ( l) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2. 7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an ''Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Learning Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy ( various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development (all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 8 of 28 Plan\" in response to section 2.7. l. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7 .1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2. 7. I. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had implemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students'\" under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at IO 18. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- e  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 9 of 28 achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find thatLRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited pa~sage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of the new curriculum in Engli~h ~anguage arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the Nationat' Science Foundation project aimed at . improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Mt at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" hh at 1077. -9- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 10 of 28 In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long tenn, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perfonn some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district court set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   . B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 11 of 28 C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.l and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the ''Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. l!L at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B and the evaluations of -Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented U)lder  2. 7,\" id. at l 076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp;Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretatiori that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 12 of 28 leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. . . . If there is any ambiguity in the . .. order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD' s Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated that LRSD would \"[c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m ]aintain written records of. .. the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted iri program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 13 of 28 On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its -self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic programs\" (e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Leaming, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 14 of 28 D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs . ... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform \"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2. 7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7 .1 obligations. -14- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 15 of 28 LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court; however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel--even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% ofthetotalnumberofseats inLRSD'sclassrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland y. N.J. Dep't of -15- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 16 of 28 Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\" A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for _two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy, i will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- i.. u Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 17 of 28 experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... C. 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. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 program$ that should be formally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 18 of 28 someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieveLRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, Junel, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- ii_ . ...,. . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 19 of 28 K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 20 of 28 filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy th~ requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 21 of 28 are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come ~los~,~-t,0.5!,_~sing !he line between proper j1!sJci9i.aL ,.2, _,_,.._..,. ...\" \"*~~-..~ -;.r.\"'...,:.,... .. .:\u0026amp;.-- ~ --  ~~-r..,,. .. ~, .~ ., - . 1  enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the,  m osition of requirements that r---= ~ ,. _ ,..,..... .   .,. ~ ~   ..- .1. '\"t.~.\"'- ...... --~- :.,,.:...~3,, :,_~c,fsa...:, ,~,,.;.~ ; find no warrantfo that undeftakirig~ did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed ------,-.. ,---~,r-.r,:: ..... '--, -.--\"' w--.-.- ~,r:-.-,,,~-t.~ to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 22 of 28 ,, Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD--not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2. 7 .1 program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpa1d.\"' Id. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- ..  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 23 of 28 ,,.Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way reH7~ing the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the coi;hmitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the f R~vised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from I Jhe ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, / requirements that may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision I at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Ian but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the d-istr-ict -cou-rt a-bus-ed -its d-isc-ret-ion =in im osing t.he. 2.00-4. R-em~edy-. ~ .. ~-- ......~ . - A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472,475 (8th Cir.1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F.3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 24 of 28 Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312F.3d 952,958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ. Dep 't of Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)). As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- ...  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 25 of 28 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 . Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire - a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2. 7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement_by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness\" ofLRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- Case 4:82..:cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 26 of 28 However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those tenns are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the tenns agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new tenns in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement . .. in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but~ would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e) available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 27 of 28 be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- A TR Ct: C1)PY OF Tiff ORIGl::-;'AL MICH_!,.::._L E.. c; _.\u0026gt;,SS. CLER~ UNrrE.D ::-T.:, TES COl-RT OF APPEALS :~~lt~'.A~l~f qa.u- UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 Gene Jones Associate Monitor Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor August 16, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org September 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of' Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza . 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895. RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: :Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sinvly . 0. ~~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer /  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al DEFENPANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 9225 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 ---- - - - . ------ - - - - -- -- --- - - --- - - RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 2006  OFFICEOf LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL  PLAINTIFFSDESEGREGATI0NM0NIT0RING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of D~cember 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the foliowing Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, .1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan . . --------------- - - - - - -- IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date  Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1778","title":"Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Project management","School integration","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1778"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for hearing; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) brief in support of response to Joshua's motion for hearing; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, response to Court directive of June 21, 2006; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:S2c.\"V-u0866-WR'N ilc:vi nf;/?1/2006 INTIIB TTNTI'ED STATES DIS1lUCT COURT EASTERN mSTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~-n:vlJ nTVT~TnN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT~ ET AL. MRS. 1-0P'PNE JOSJTTTA., ET AL N0.082 P. 2 Page 1 of 2 PLAIN'ra'F INTERVENORS JNTER.VENORS MOTION FOil BEt\\BJNG ON BEHALF OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua I:ntervenors, in compliance with Section I of the little Rocle School District Compliance Remedy fikd June 30, 2004, mpectfully move the Court for a hearing in crder ro b!mg-probll;_'!'mi;. t.n the attention of the Court with respect to the tittle Rock School ~trict s implementation of the Compliance Remedy. '- We have infonned Little Rock School District s counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, about tbi5 motion and while he objects to it, he does not oppose a court hearing. Respectfully submitted, /I/John W, Walker ____________ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Arkansas 72206 ~01-374-1758  501-3744187 (fax) E=::il: jcl;w-\u0026gt;-Jk:3tt'!@11~l.t'.'.om 1  JUN. 21. 2006 4: 1SPM J\"Ol-tl W WALKER P A N0.082 P.3 case 4:is2-cv.:waas-w~w Fl!Ad 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE QF si-:t\u0026lt;VlCi I .fa h~;-eertify_tl!.~t i:m this 21\" day of June, 2006 the following motion has been fiic:d wil~ ~ C~..t.'EC: ::::,':!=:n ~!hkh will i;end notification of such filing to all counsei of recorci. IJ!lohnW,Walp;: 2 --- -- --------- - - - - . I JVl-ft'i W WALKER PA N0,082 T ~ T T\"'l T TTT ..,f,..l_ ,..1...r_-..t..t..V....- .Y.Y -__ UT A 1 V L/ 1)  LJ yy r1..LJ.L~ .I.. I._, ..l.  .. LL A,. .......... \"\".,,; T h1A1 ~ ....... , ,, .... ., -- -- 172J l:f; w:Jrra; Litrie x.ocir. .A.rK(ui.j\"-) 72206 Telephone (50ij 3i4-S7So Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION Cu'VER SB:E~T P.1 --------------- :D~~ .lune 21. 2006 To: Gene Jones Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sauler: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ___ (,tnciutiing cover sneeij] PA.GE(S), INCLUDING TF~ COVRR SHEET. IF YOU DO Nar RECEJVJ:.:ALL l'HE PAGES, .ELEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 314-3758\u0026gt;11 The informationeamaiaedin this \u0026amp;csimile message is attomeyprivilcged andconfideniialinformation intended only for the use of 1hc individual or entity namod aDQvt;. rr ~ .... ~ .. ::- of :hl:: =~~!!~ i~ !!.\".'t the mt.ended recipient, or the employee or agent responsibie w dc;livc1 ;. tut.~ :..t...:.d.::! :eci~i~, yi:m ,we hereby notifled mat any disscmimdicm, dis1nOUJio,n or wpy~ \"t .:.ii wi-\"l\":-::t:~~ is ~rl~~ ~.ahibited. If you have received Ibis commumcation ~error, pu.isK i,;;m;;~h'~ :::.~'\".l.: by te!~h.~n111, Mid Tet\\mi. the original message to us at the aboV.e address via UM: U.S. ~u.\u0026gt;-:al Sc.-~-:~ Th='\"\"\"\"'.!. - - ----- Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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 June 21, 2006 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: JUN 2 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOijlJORING I just received your Motion for a Hearing on Behalf of Joshua Intervenors. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2006, please file a supplement to this motion which will apprise me and your opposing counsel much more fully in the premises. Err, if you are to err at all, on the side of specificity. After receiving supplement, a hearing will be set if it appears one is necessary. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement, also with specificity, within five days after service ofthe supplement. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts .gov a,iessage-Id : \u0026lt;68360l@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; 9lcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"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 6/22/2006 at 9:08 AM CDT and filed on 6/21/2006 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.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26 / 1998 Document Number : 4020 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?4020 , 26052,,MAGIC,,,2005401 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER, Counsel for Joshua Intervenors is to file by 6/28/06 a supplement re [4018] MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorene Joshua. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement within 5 days after service of Joshua Intervenors supplement. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 6/21/06 . (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document 8)riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=10957 94525 [Date=6/22/2006] [FileNumber=683 600:-0] [70b999c859edla527653c3c3e9826a037ela38d6ea03dd7cafbd7b7e86beed14092ae352049b4ce 636dfdf2f9d227045ec417b43f5176ed93cd56b211703d489]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag . gov, angela.dover@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj.com . _Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net 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: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING For its Response, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: -RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2006 OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Section I of the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy requires that the parties irrimediately bring to the Court's attention any problems which arise with respect to the Compliance Remedy. 2. The Joshua lntervenors filed a Motion today asking for a hearing to bring unspecificed problems to the attention of the Court. The Joshua Intervenors' Motion contains no factual allegations and does not identify any particular compliance issue. 3. Prior to any hearing, Joshua should be required to allege particular violations of the Compliance Remedy so that LRSD may prepare to present its defense at the hearing. 4. LRSD denies that its counsel told counsel for the Joshua Intervenors that he does not oppose a court hearing. It is LRSD's position that a hearing is appropriate only after the Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 lntervenors have alleged facts which would constitute a violation of the Compliance Remedy. 5. LRSD denies that it has engaged in any violations of the Compliance Remedy. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays thatthe Court require the Joshua lnte_rveners to present specific factual allegations in support of any claim that LRSD has failed to follow the Compliance Remedy before scheduling a hearing on the issue. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 _By: /s/ CHRISTOPHERHELLER#81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I certify that on June 21 , 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th~ Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state,ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 3 of 3 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 Isl Christopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RECEiVED JUN 2 3-2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MOtllTORII\u0026amp; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING ___ .Rule 7(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a motion \"shall state with particularity the grounds therefore, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.\" Rule 7 .2 of the local district court rules requires that motions \"shall be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of relevant facts and applicable law.\" The Joshua Intervenors have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l) and Local Rule 7.2. Their Motion for Hearing should therefore be denied: Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: Isl CHRISTOPHER HELLER #81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District F:\\Home\\BRENDAKIFLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MOTION FOR HEARING.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 22, 2006, I 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(@,ae:. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com. siones(a),jlj :com johnwalkeratty@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 F:\\Homc\\BRENDAK\\FLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MO~N FOR HEARING.wpd United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V . . * * * * * * * * * * * * Pulaski County Board of Education; * Patricia Gee, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock *' School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy; Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges~ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court's I denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. ~Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered. into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit  of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that ifLRSD substantial1y complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3 - Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.l provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the fonn of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a . compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affinned. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment :that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory perfonnance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially comp lied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.l of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2.7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever detennined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement --5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthennore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: (I) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir.2001) (\"[l]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir; 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan, 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965 . . III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Scierice (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -T- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had irpplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2. 7 .1 was to make sure that the programs promised under  2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAs. so ciate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, . it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" Id. at 1077. -9- In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district CO\\.!rt set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04-school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved. in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and Band the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and Bis that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" jg,_ at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev., 807F.2d 1433, 1438; 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. ... If there is any ambiguity in the ... order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlinetfhow LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[m]aintain written records of .. . the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new~ comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7\" to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to\"[ c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003. . . . Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive . mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id.. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific 2. 7 \"academic programs\" ( e:g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis. to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts-A andB of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess eacluJfthe  2.7 programs .... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2. 7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform-\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its . 2002 order, the .district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1.  Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation.. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superflumis requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2.7.1 obligations. -14- LRSD's 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and Bin the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2.7.1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient chall.enge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD' s compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is -likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain . meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy_ (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and thenistrict court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was. contemplated bJ the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- Corr., 246 F.3d 267,281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals:'); Annstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perfonn is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD 's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... C. 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) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perfonn the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be fonnally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional infonnation and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom infonnation was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being perfonned on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua ori December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- , K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that - LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had . been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer availafil.e to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshu~ had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD 's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the . line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?)' Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.l program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpaid.\"' l.d:. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirements thatmay seem to imp.ose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be successful. With these observations, the judgment is affinned. - GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affinn the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewaldv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new tenns that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Hollandv. NJ Dep'tofCorr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and shoold not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7. l of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD's quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its . Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2. 7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD' s  curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, notto a permanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goal[]\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District; P laintifli' Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; WayneJoshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, v. * Appeal from the United. States  * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski-County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.;. Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock - I I I I School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public* Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capadty as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; :j\u0026gt; Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER,. Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since l 956~ the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little R~-S-Ch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th .Cir. i'985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Councy Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arno Id's Court, 5 8 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts of LR.SD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Coun1,y. 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, .it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion. of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD' s obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion ofthe2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5 . In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Littfe Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2.d. 988,.1089  '(E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.rprovided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy)  designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Annstrong, 359 E}d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7 .1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. Councy School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five are~ etf a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations, because ith~ substantially complied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7.1 \"). As the district court noted in.2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" ML. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD - to \"implement programs~ policies and/or procedures designed to improve. and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. Tis colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement oflocal authoriiy by .an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( 1) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD 's obligations under section 2. 7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 FJd 1013, 1017 (8th Cir .. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the tenns of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. m. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting tenninofogy employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised P Ian took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- - (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim 'Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan.  The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5, 2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2. 7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring,. Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. ~ Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-Schoo I Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan;. PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy (various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School.TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High SchooL Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance  Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its fmal Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained addttional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LR.SD had evaluated fourteen prograrns.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had iqiplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan; 237 F. Supp. 2d at\" 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were: \"all of the programs ... that LR.SD was implementing in. accprdance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section2.7.1 oftheRevisedPlanrequiredLRSDto assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy,. Comprehensi:ve Partnerships forMathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters- (}IIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- r achievement. If the assessment of a .program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD' s substantial compliance with  2. 7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing.a rigcmms annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id; at I 076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the . terms of the Revised Plan .. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K~3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schbols; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much ;, more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on  certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part of LRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id; at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is. interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\"  1d. at 1077. -9- - . In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" 14:. The district  court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district collit set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the . academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those , programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each. program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c} the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a _grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .. '. . [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluati.om,. any changes or modifications should be made in those prograins ... Jn addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are . detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy .. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B-and the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" id. at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD' s Interim Compliance Report. Cf Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev.; 807F.2d'1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant .... If there is any ambiguity in the . . . order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.'\"). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. Tire Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student' assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m]aintain written records of ... the results of the  annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD' s interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.;' The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan   2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify. orreplace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new; comprehensive. evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. ~ 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a- copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72.}. Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised:'.f'Ian, requested that the 0DM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement.  -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of\"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3.. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented-pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation:   ' ' The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a.National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science.e.vaiuation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. IQ,_ at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic progm,ns\" ( e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, er Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- - D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs. .. _ I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programS'-\"\"'because, on its face, no.thing.in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. M,_at8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated thatLRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In. its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, . plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addres.sed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed,Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSE did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7.1 obligations. -14- . I LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1 : it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the Aftican:-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court foundthat LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the ,plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). '---. At the outset, we.have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its tenns beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any tcquirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th-Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its ternis.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- - Qm:.., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terrns when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's g.ools.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their ownjudgriient as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.'1). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. .e In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as.representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged. in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years~  2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this. Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows:  A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the. preparation of formal program  evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. . The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It inay take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need.for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achie.yement of African-American students .. . . C. 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. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key : 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools. throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr; Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identtfy the four key  2. 7 programs that should be . formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels,-:who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- . K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter.; I wiU schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions. quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that.LRSD had not substantially complied with the tenns of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are tenned its ''Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and.Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the  Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to. demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's . Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD' s compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle. it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its d1sagreement_ with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Withwt recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSI? submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remed~ we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof: all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court   in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- - are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. NeverJieless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the _ line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and.the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple_ language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do th~t it is unwilling to: do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying -with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at tliis time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements-of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the . moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation th~ substantial compliance .means just that, not mathematical precision'. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Rerised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Courtformulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.1. program assessment/ evaluation process that will allow it to detennine the effectiveness-of each of the key  2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. , D. Ct Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD 's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading; math, and. science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a de,bt unpaid.\"' ill at 68. We adtfto these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that -which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - - - - ------ - - ------------~ - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered. into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirememsi:hat may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one fonn or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be. successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodiedin the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d  ~ J at 1300 (quotmgSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, !.,..concurring)). Although we defer in large measureto the district court's interpretation-or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by   imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F .3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous tenns of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ Dep't of Corr., 246 F: .3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and-should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the tenns agreed to by the parties in section 2. 7; 1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those tenns. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.T' for a year and a half and ''to use. all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing Ea) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction irrthe 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"asses~ment\" and a more forma~ research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are.   untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon:assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in_subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Toe district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross ( or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those  programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the. 2002, Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in . assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum ami instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court): The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- - -- - - --- - ---- ------------~ - However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply.embedded\" requirement, viewed in ligfit of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD' s compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At thispoint, vacatingthe 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD' s efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 R.emedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at9-1 0; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- 1 . be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out.of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy.would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without OlSIUpting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy . . Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- _,u,,.ai  .::t:J~ 4 ' ,j' U\"'rl JVHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P. 2/ 10 .~ 4:82-\u0026lt;::V-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN nm UNITBD STATF.s DJSTlUCT COURT EASTRi.~DlS'f\u0026amp;AICT OP. APJ\"-,.ANSAS ~'E.-:.\"T\u0026amp;.i.~ DIVISION LttrI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DJSTRICI' NO. 1. ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL KATHFJUNE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS BF..ffllNSE IQ CQJJBT PIBEC'JlYi OF JUNE 21, 20Q6 The Com:t directed. Joshua to submit a statement in support of it$ tequest for a bearing by u,day. JO\u0026amp;hna submits the attached Affidavit of Ms. Joy Spnll\u0026amp;C% in support of its motion and request for a hearm,. - Respectfully submittoo, /s/Jobn W. W!!ke{ Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 221.ocustA\"VCDUC JOHN W. WAL~ PA I exingtan, MA 02421 1723 Broadway (781) 86?-.19SS Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 (501) ~74-~75\u0026amp; (SO!) 374-4187 (Fu) JUI'!, c:ts. c:= 4; ,:j4t-'M JVHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P. 3/10 case 4;82-CV-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06128/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tbat OD this_ day of ______ 2006, I electronically filed tbe fmegoing with the Clcn of Court using the CMIECF SystcDi, which shall send notification to all counsel associated with this case and who .are registered with the system and by othet means to the unn,gistered pc2'SODS listed below. Clayr.on R. Blackstock Mitd2ell, BJacbtoct. Baines. Wapitt, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PU.C 1010 West Thud Street Post Office Box 1S10 Little Rock, All 72203-1S10 Noanm J. Chachkin NAACP ~iol Dd~se \u0026amp; ~..:.0-..al Fund, h:c. 99 Hudson Sir~ ft  .  ,l'AA, .)Wfe LOUU New York. 1,n 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attomey 0eoen1~s Office ~-Pricn Tower Building 323 Center Street Suitc200 Little Rock. .AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thomp500 \u0026amp; Lle~llyn, P.A. 412 Sooth Eiglttffl!th Stmet P~t Qffi~ Box 818 IN !HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EAST~ Ul:SlRICI OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ll'!'l'.LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LOP.ENE JOSHU--6.., ET .AL KATdERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO.04:82c'V00869WRWIJTR AFFIDA VII Ql lQY SPRINGER ' ,-. Comes now me afrumt, Joy Spri.n. ger~w ho states under oath: N0.152 P.4/10 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANiS INTERVENORS 1. My name i.s Joy Springer and I have been assisn,:d by counsel for the Joshua Intervenoxs to monitor the Little Roek School District's compliance with the court's order of June 30, 2004 (later referred to as the Compliance Remedy). .?... T-h -~:-.1w. . n.r evinu.d.v, !!ubm.itted affidavits herein indicatin2- that l have a two lnchelors ' . degrees, one in ~ Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Mamrs degree in Education Administration from UALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years. 3. r have been.regularly monitoring program evaluati cornpliance before and especially s-.nce the court's order of June 30) 2004. My .monitoring has involved the following activiues: l .JUl~  .::.t:1.\u0026lt;::.~b 4 ' d::\u0026gt;t-'1'1 JOHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.5/ 10 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program evaiuati.ons; b) conveISations with PRE staff, the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE' s quarterly reports regar~ the compliance remedy; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I have rcgulatly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM, what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, fo\u0026lt;..-used and deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my wol'k. I have had 311 occasion to review district publi~ons which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is dcmons1rafed. for cxm:npl~, by the district's professional d.eveloP\"\"-t c .. lendar fur the y~rs 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006? approximately three weeks lx,fore the end of the second school year addressed in the ccrmplienc~ remedy f 11nd ::.l'!l-,sr two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], ~en for tbose 2 JUN.28.2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P.6/ 10 dates. it de~ net m-?.f-l\"n. the nnmher of -S'tm wbo received professional developmem with ?CSpect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district' .s cmricu1um. This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in. the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court upected (Page 62, Fcotnote39 oft~ C.ompMnee Remedy) to be apart of the comprehensive assessment process will not be uudertami until tbe fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1. 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questioanaire postpOned) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse: to eith_\"'!' supplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comp1~\\ei:isivt asse5:,,1ue:ut prveess in.to the in..'\"tr.z....\"tion :programs. LP.SD Complinnc--\" Report March 1, 2006 at 3. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE' s use. {Interview with Dr. De.Jamette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's - req,Ji.-rem.em: that the difflict have a PRE department in the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program msessment/evaluation process (Ptige 68, of tho Compliance Remedy). 3. Various factors suggest that the vision of the cU1Tent administration of the LRSD de~ the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE ~ed m~Jy ti) the Suy_,erintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would reali.u the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court.. Jn March 2005, Dr. to sui,ervise PRE. Theresfter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities u,ron PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major foCU!. These responsibilities :included the pteparation school improvement plans for a. lqe 3 JUN.G~-2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.152 P.7/10 nmn~er of schools as wen at- developing and cmying out surveys required as part of the school i.wptovemem effort. I un.de::r.:m-:f \"PP.E's m~j~r fucu~ to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying out of required assessments and evaln.a.ti.ons, and the emberlding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD s cmriculum and instruction program. 9. Int.he two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation. Dr .. Olivine Robar.s has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LR.SD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Brooks hM made with respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. A.!?.at..hereY\"\"'\"le of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the 2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation COllSisted. for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. - ~ the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active participation by other ,Hqn,,;ct st!tf who h~ the respo~~;hiJity of actually implementing the programs being ~aluated. 11. A third example of PRE's diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The 1,'esting Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham_ left the district l)rior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contto....ct 1H\"';\";cJu.d from ! 1 month!i: tc:, 10 months as a result of the district's ''reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testina Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. Arthur Olds).[Compllimce Report March 1, 2006] He resigned after approximately 3 months on thcjob.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position has not been nllet:f. Tt is my understanding that one of PREs statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4. .Jun  .:.cs. \u0026lt;::.~IOo 4 ; .:!bl\"rl J VHN W WRLKER P A N0.152 P.8/ 10 ~...c:l =gr.e1 tru: .orlrlP.tl ~onsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for jub vacancies, the Te.,~ COO?dinator positinn has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at t,\"\" Tn~..t ctfonal ~~ouree Cent.er (IRC) of the LRSD. The puxposc of the meetini was for PRE staff to update Joahua and the ODM regarding the mtm~ nfthe Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the neeessary test data for the Step 2 evalu:rtiom due on October ! , 2006. PRE Director, Or. DeJamette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data wo!!ld be SY~.h thst m extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJamettc stated that she would provide the necessary information to the lSD counsel for the fi1ina of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1, 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process - into its cumculum and ins1ruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in fonnulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2. 7 .1. Based upon this commumcation and inf0tlll8tion. comaincd in paragraphs 5.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PR P. :miff members and the ODM representative. Ocnc Jones, that because the district was not in compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its cumculum and instruction programs . as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has ~ommunicated similar reservations to the LRSD' s PRE staff JUt'i.C:l:S.\u0026lt;:::~ 4'::lbl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.9/ 10 14. Foll~ inf'ormini l)r. ne.Jamette, .PRE Dl!ector, that Joshua would invoke the and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met with Mr. Jones thereafter. It is noteWOrthy that they did not io.lu.de Pll Oireetm- Oe.Ta.mette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly 8$k.ed that Joshua be fully involved in these discussions. the district chose t~ involve only ODM 15. I am of the view that the LRSD h3s continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30. 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example. it appears to me that Dr. DcJamettc is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She bas indic31'Cd as much during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD has no definitive plan for the USe of \"assessments'' being geuer.itcd by the Compass Leaming programs. Furdlermore, the school district's adxninistration bas not acted in keeping - Joshua and the court informed through timely reports., of tbe necessity for more time. and for modification of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluatiOrtS which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's fmlurc to provide the n~my data. Afflant saith nothing further; 6 JUl'i. a:,,~ 4; ~bl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A STATE OF AR.KANSAS) COUNTY OF ILYt1vJt.t \\ 7 N0.152 P.10/10 ..,...,,,.c.o.c.t:iO\u0026lt;Jo \u0026lt;-+,::1\u0026lt;-+r-11 JVMl'i W WHLKt.1-\u0026lt; t-' A N0.152 P.1/ 10 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 17:15 .Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (SOJ) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMJSSIO]S COVER SHEET Dat~: June 28 ,2006 To: GeneJones Fa.x: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sende: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ( (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S}, INCLUDING THIS COVF;R SHEEI'. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE.A.LL THE PA.GES, PLEA.SE CALL ''\u0026lt;(S01) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" Theinfonnationcourainedinthisfac:similemessageisattorneyprivilegcd.andconfidemialinfonnationintended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Iftbe r    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1772","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Education--Evaluation","Transportation","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1772"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Joshua's reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education; District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, four Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    MAGNET REVIEIAI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNCSION P. 002/008 LITI1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW .ITR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERlNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL . DEfEND.ANT INTER VENO RS INTERVENOR$ .JOSHUA S SURREPLY TO LRSD S REPLY TO .JOSHUA S RESPONSE TO COURT s ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 200s __ _,.Joshua requests to engage in discovery in anticipation of further proceedings including a possible hearing. Joshua. respectfully responds to the LRSD s reply to the Joshua Intervenors Response to the Court s Order ofNovember 8, 200S: 1 . The special education cost increases are not adequately c,cplained. Careful review of the reply indicates thnt the District did not identify salazyincreases nor employees U\u0026gt; be replaced who arc more senior and better educated. Moreover, of the $114,676.00 increasc'only $S000.00 is explained. The explanation otherwise has to be that each current employee will be give a $5000.00 salary increase. Joshua simply docs not understand this and it makes no sense. Furthermore, teachers and employees elsewhere in the district are not being given similar consideration as that which appears to be proposed. The consequence of disparate treatment would be to favor magnet school srudents and to disfavor regular school students of whom most in the special education curriculum arc African American. MAGNET REVIEW P.003/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 . Page 2 of 3 2. During public board meetings Board member Katherine Mitchell complained that students in a number of the regular schools did not have textbooks as of October, 2005. She indicated that the district did not have textbooks purchases for students as a priority. The district does not commit the $239,855.00 for textbooks. It simply says that the increase is related to its adoption of new textbooks in certain subjects. Joshua s concern is that LRSD s material and supply costs favor the students in the magnet schools to the possibl~ comparative detriment of the students in the regular schools, especially those who ore underachieving. 3. The district explains the $258,640.00 indirect costs increase as being for  adminis~ve fees, the percentage rate of which was changed during 2004-2005. A raise of that amount would necessarily mean that the budget is being increased by more than $1. 75 million dollars, i.e., the fee base is more than SI. 75 million dollars. Joshua attaches the MRC minutes of September 20, 2005 which contain Mr. Mark Millhollen s explanation of the budget request. (Joshua Exhibit 1, page 3) In it, Mr. Millhollen indicates that the proposed budget increase is $900,000.00 half of which is for salary increases and the other part is for textbooks. Two things about this: 1) a fee base of 15% would increase the administrative costs amount by $135,000 rather than $258,000; and 2) it materially differs from the rationale submitted bytbe district to the court for the increases. 4. Joshua disputes that the closure of Mitchell and Rightsc:1.1 are unrelated to tbe MRC s proposed budgetS. Those two schools had low enrollments and out dated physical ~1rUcturcs for many years but they were still maintained for use during the student assignment plan. The students in those schools are entitled to equal education and services wherever they were assigned. An assessment of the budget, we believe, will demonstrate that the students in the closed schools have been adversely affected bythcir reassignments while the students in the ' . MAGNET REVIEW P. 004/008 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Flle.d 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 3 magnet schools have had their education advantages and services enhanced. The district argues that it spends less to operate the stipulation magnets due to contributions from the State and the two other school districts. This misses the point. The question is whether the budget increases are adequately justified irrespective of who is paying the costs. We submit that the district may not advantage the magnet schools more ~y than the regular schools simply because the State, NLRSD and PCS SD are supplemental sources of funding. WHEREFORE. Joshua requC?Sts that the court afford Joshua the opportunity to explore the matter further by way of discovery as authorized by the federal rules; chat after such discovery, Joshua reports to the court its concerns and the evidentiarybasis therefor; and that the court at that time determine whether further proceedings arc necessazy. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W, Walker _____________ ___,John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-37S8 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jobnwalkeratty@nol.cQID CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed -with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this Sth day of January, 2005 whae copies are fur.warded to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker I I ' MAGNET REVIEW MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 20, 2005 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101. North Little Rock, Arkansas, on Tuesday. Scpcember 20, 2005. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Marvin Jeter, PCSSD Absent: Guests: Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intc:rvencrs Danny Reed, NLRSD Gene Jones, Associate Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mark Milhollen, ChiefFmancial Officer - LRSD Jean Ring, Director ofFmance and Accounting - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor-Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie .M'itchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of June 29, 2005. Dr. Mitchell asked if there were any corrections or deletions to be made. Marcia Harding made a motion to accept the rmnutes as presented, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's repolt. She called the Committee's attention to items m correspondence. The first item was a letter to the Court, notifying the Court that the interdistrict magnet schools budget would not be submined by the June 30111 self.:imposed deadline but that. hopefully, the budget process would be completed within the month ofJuly. Copies of the Ietterweregiveri to MR.C members, but no action was required by the MRC.  P.005/008 MAGNET REVIEW  duals in all three school districts to thank them for . ~:i;,w -'~:)~i: _29, 200~ meeting. Copies oftbememoranduin ,,_;.,-,. for their infonnation . . .: ~~~; ... .:~ _ _. \"\"''\" tc, all three school districts' Student Registration Offices were  ,;: . ,, . . This memprandwn suggested dates for the annua! \"swap . . _ , , iPagnet seats a.s possible before the beginning of the new school  ~ ,,, required b the MRC. ljf.\"' y ~~-~~~~t: . . . .. .. ,.,, :- -~-  was sent to John W. Walker, Attorney at Law. in response to a letter ~~    ::: ...  w..a.a:s office requesting copies of all information from the MR.C Office prior t .  ~ MRC meeting. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was Ttq\\1\\fed' t\u0026gt;jtnc\\Vfit\\:.. A thank-you memorandum was sent to participants at the aruiual \"swap meet\" which was held in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Mann Magnet bas been given the opportunity to decorate the tree for the annual CART! Festival of Trees via a memorandum from Ms. Creer. Copies were given to MRC members for their perusal. A letter was sent to the Court to provide information that the imerdistrict magnet schools budget still was not fioaliud. due to teacher contract negotiatiom still in progress. Copies of the letter were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC.  - Copie., of a letter to Lisa Meyer, Director of Mall Marketing. McCain Mall, were given to MRC members. This leaer informed Ms. Meyer that the MRC is happy to be workmg with her again this year to host the Magnet Fair on Jamwy 21, 2006.   A memorandum was sent to magnet school principals providing reauitrnent information for the 2005-06 school year, and of the activities that are being planned. Copies were  given to MRC members, but no action was required on the pan of the MRC. Congramlations memorandums were sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal at Carver . Magnet, and Dr. Cheryl Carson. Principal at Booker Magnet, for hosting successful Open . Houses. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of S3, 181. 70 wc:re presented for payment. Oliver Dillirigbam made a . motion to pay the bills, and Marcia Harding seconded the motio.a. The: motion carried unanimously to pay the: bills. -2- P. 006/008 ' MAGNEr REVIEW There were no newspaper articles since the previous Magnet Review Committee meeting that are specifically related to magnet schools. With regard to recruitment, Ms. Creer has bad the opportunity to go to Open Houses. She did go to Booker, Carver, Henderson, and J. A Fair. All of them had a great turnout. Oliver Dillingham said he attended Mann's Open House as a parent, and said it was very nice and had Vt!fr'J good participation. There are no vaca.ocies or new hires at this ti.me in the Little Rocle School District Stipulation magnet schools. Mark Milhollen came before the Magnet Review Committee to present information with regard to the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, and the proposed budget for the Stipulation magnet schools for the 2005-06 school year. Mr, Milhoilcn started his presentation with the information that the final budget for the 2004-0S school year was based on the third quarter ADM of3,S62.90. Actual expenditures included giving a 10% raise. a step incrc:asc in 2004-05, and a raise in insurance contnbutions to $260.00 per month. All this was contained in the 2004-05 school year and still came within the budget. The fin.al budget figure placed the per pupil ex:peuditw-e at $7,235.00, which was $2.00 Jess per pupil than originally budgetecL The 2005-06 budget was established with the $5,400 figure for the funding formula. An agreement was reached for a % raise to the base for all employees and a step increase for all employees. The fringe package was also increased by $3.00, going from $260.0.0 to $263.00. There is also a re.open clause in the bargaining. If the results of the hearing from the Lakeview case are good. the district will r~pen the negotiations and tallc about potential ma-eases for the teachers. Wrth regard to FTE' s, Mr. Milhollen reported that a teaching position was lost at Gibbs Magnet, a choral position was added at Parlcview, and a  Special Education teacher was also added at Parkview. Mr. Milhollen reported that the proposed budget canies an increase ofS900,000 for 2005-06. One-half of that amount is due to the salary increase. Another part of the increase is for textbooks - this is adoption year. . Marcia Harding then made a motion to accept the Stipulation magnet school budget for the 2004-0S schooJ year, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion curried unanimoualy. -3- P.007/008 MAGNt l REVIEW Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Milhollen for coming before tbe MRC and presenting the budget report. Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, came before the Magnet Review Committee to report on the status of the M-to-M Policies and Procedures. He-informed the MRC that a controversy arose last August regarding Majority-to-Minority Transfers. He then met with the parties (Joshua Intervenor.s included) to iron OUt the problems. There is a divergent interest among the- districts, according to Mr. Smith. One district is still in Court regarding student assignment issues - the other two are released from Court. Mr. Smith asked the parties if they wished to continue the M-to-M transfers, and the desire is to do so. The Office ofDesegregatioa Monitoring has now deve!oped an agreement in draft form that, hopefully, all parties will sign. Mr. Smith provided copies to l\\illC members. MT. Smith noted that this really affects the lives of children. Transportation issues are what we are dealing with. There is a reluctance to provide transportation to some M-toM students. Ms. Harding thanked Mr. Smith for his report to the MR.C. She noted that it was a very good report. Ms. Creer and Dr. Mitchell reported that Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Magnet ConsuJtant. has been visiting in Little Rock. She necd:i a lot of historical .information about the magnet schoob, and Mark Milhoilen is putting together the information for her. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Creer also met with Dr. Dreyfus, and she reported to them on the teacher evaluation programs. Dr. Dreyfus will be bade in town again soon, and Ms. Creer and Dr. :M:itchell will keep the MRC updated on the progress. Ms. Creer reminded the MRC that it is time to select our MR.C Chairperson and ViceChair for the 2005-06 year. Marcia Harding made a motion to continue with Dr. Sadie Mitchell as Chairperson, and Danny Recd as Vice-Chair. Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. ' Ms. Creer informed the MR.C that Parkview would like to host the next Magnet Review Committee meeting. It was agreed by consensus to schedule it for Wednesday,  October 12, 2005. When no further business was brought before the MR.C, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting. and Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. P.008/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED \u0026amp;n~ ,~--;,o~- omceOF DESEGREGATIONYONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Court's Order of December 17, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR\" ICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: rnark.ha2:erneier@ag .state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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. 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 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Pag. e 1 of 45 ~ _/ . (D -(J,u,, . { 1 ( 1,,0 RECEIVED OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Year or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13, 2006 Rece,veo JAN 17 2006 James S. Catterall DESEGREGjWoiE:bNtrORJNG Professor UCLA Gradu_ate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 RECEIVED ~ t -- . . - - -- 11 / !J~i- - do~ omceoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little, Rock, Arkansas Family l\"nterviews Year-round - vs - 9-month Schools UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED JAN 3 O 2006 DFFICEDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCSSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act (Doc. No. 3911). The motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECf f,VED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG' Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~\"11-o.R Scotts~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr: J anna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle *' Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RECialVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl\"\\JSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cottSm1th REC::fVED FEB - 2 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFleE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAl~GAil0NM ONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) forthe current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June-. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education February 28, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 . OFFICE.OF DESEGREGATION'MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane.Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry.Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle or: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy La\".\"son, Bentonville *Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ( . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2006. Respectfully Submitted, i~fk Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr: M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ . ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation P~ n and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 wn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 31 , 2006 SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED APR -.l 2006 CEOF N MONITORING Sl'ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia et Vice Chair: Diane.Tatum-,.Pine Bluff Members:- Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle: .. Dr. CalvirrKing, Marianna .. Randy Lawson; Bentonville. .. Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. MaryJanl!!Rebick, UttlecRi\u0026gt;ck. .. Dr. NaccamarrWilllams, Springdale A,r Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR -3 2006  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-800-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education. #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SrunuelJones,m Mitchell, Williruns, Selig; Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 _Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~1tk Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINEW. KNIGHT, ETAL INTERVENOR$ ADES PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . \" (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June . .. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date ... . . Last day of each month, August - June. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .Educatii'n '--5 Gene s.ei-~ Arkansas Dep , '1 '  n SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071. {501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us ED 6 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr: JeannaWestmoreland; Arkadelphia  Vice.Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine-Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Shelby Hillman, carlisle ., Dr. calvin King, Mariann ., Randy Lawsorr,.Bentonville .. Dr: Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock:.   Dr: NaccamanWilliams, Springdale Arr Equal Opportunity employer   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 '1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 27, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. Samuel Jones, ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;~~ttkir- Scott Smith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ... APR 2 8- 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE Of _ DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL Irr compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This. document-describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA  (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average- daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date. Last day of- each month, August--June. 05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 US DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRJCT OF ARKANSAS omcE OF THE CLERK 600 WEST CAfflOL A VENUE SUITE402 Ll'ITJ...E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72.201-3325 PAGE 01 ,JAMF..S W. McCORMACK CLD.K ($01)604-5351 F AX(~1)604-S32S TO: 'FROM: DATE: RE: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ATTN: PoJJy) Tammy Downs, Oeputy Clerk May 11, 2006 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County School Distriqt, et al. Case No.: 4:82-cv-00866  I Attached is a copy of the recent text entry order entered by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. The original will follow by mail. Thank you.  THJS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF_ PAGES INCLUJDlNG THIS COVER PAGE.  05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 MJ.ME- Version:l.O f~om:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov T.o:arecl_ecf@ared . u!.courts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;64777l@ared.useourts.gov\u0026gt; Bee: US DISTRICT COURT Subject:~ctivity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pu~.iski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Withdraw\" Content-Type: t~xt/plainNOTE TO PUBLIC ~CC?.SS USERS*** You may view the; filed documents once wit hout ch~ r.ge . To avoid later charges, download a copy of each docUltlent during this first vi,ewing.U.S. District Court Eastern Distr.ict of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5/2/2006 at 11:54 AM CDT and file~ on 5/2/2006 Case Name: Little ~OCK School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Ca.se Number: 4: 82-cv-866 http://ecf.at'ed. uscourts. gov/cgi.-bin/DktRpt .pl. ?26052 WAAN~NG: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4012 Copy the URL adc:l:r:ess from the line below into the l ocation bar o f. your Neb : browser to view 1:he document: 401.2 Docket Text: PAGE 02 (This is a TeXT ENTRY ONLY. T.here is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER gnnting (4011] LRSO's Motion to Wj_thdraw Objections to ODM Budget. Signed by Judge William R. Wil~on Jr. on 05/02/06. (dmm, ) The followj_ng docurnQnt(sl a~e associated with this transaction: 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailQd to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock(!mbbw5 .. com Ma~k Terry Burnette mburn~tte@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltQl.net Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeierear.kansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller he.Uer@fQc.net, brendak@fec.net; tll\\iller@fec.nc.\\t. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephan w. ~Tones sjone$@jlj.com, lcate.jones@jlj.com; l :i.nda,calloway@jlj.coni Phili? E. Kaplan pkaplan~kbrnlaw.net, nmoler@~bmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yaboo.com John W. Walker johnwe.lkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmQil.com 4:82-cv-866 Notic-: will be d~livered by other mQans to: No.t'man J. Chachkin NAACe Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY. 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger ~rkan$aa Attorney General\"s Office Ca~lett- Prten rower Building 323 Center StrcQt St)i.te 200 Little Roe~, AR 72201-2610 , 105/11/2006 13: 48  ' 5016045321 Jame~ M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Stret Post Office Box 918 Fo~t Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 Wast Capitol Suite 1895 Little Roek, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Tho~p5on \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eigh~eenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, 1\\R 72902-0818 US DISTRICT COURT PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4014 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. A May 2, 2005 Order reads: ORDER On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately .1 - On May 9, 2005, LRSD filed objections to the proposed budget.2 However, on May 1, 2006, LRSD filed a Motion to Withdraw its objections to the ODM budget.3 The motion was granted the next day.4 Because there are no longer objections to the proposed ODM budget, it is approved and adopted as presented. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2006. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 3914. 2Doc. No. 3917: 3Doc. No. 4011. 4Doc. No. 4012: LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04, % of 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004-05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) ofODM's unspent budget for the previous year: 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD'!\u0026gt; share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NL RS D's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 2003-04 Actual .................................................. 61,042.00 127,415.00 520.00 126,895.00 f'\\ 2004-05'0 2004-05 2005;,()lf _, BtlDGET Estimated BUDGE.T . 200,000.00 200,000.00 \\ . 1~,583.00 134,583.00 118,262.00 4,282.00 4,282.00 1,724.00 130,301 .00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES 2003-04 2003-04 ~ .'2004:.c,5,/1~ 2004-05 ,, 2005-0,\u0026amp;f\"1~1 BUDGET Actual : i t,,BUDGErJ; j Estimated .BUD.GEE:,t ~ .. ,:: ., Communications 8,000.00 7,813.33 J!it):9f1_90:0Q~ 9,006.00 ~ r 61000lOdri Dues ahd Fees 735.00 930.00 ',.' 'J\u0026gt;, ' 265:00t,1 265.00 ... ;, ., . .. , r-, ~ '.', \" .. ' j, '.\\l 2:Zo,,0.0;_. ft'}': ,.ii:='.l'o' ;a00;.~ \\ ,' \u0026lt; ,, ,, Equipment 500.00 2,590.99 f ; --~t~t,,;,:r; : . -~ 0.00 f o;oor Food Services 0.00 :--,,, ,.A~ ( O:oo1 ~- ,,, . ', ,.'\u0026lt;.I 0.00 ., 0.00 1, O'.0Q,. Management Services ,. :t  '  ' ' f 5,000.00 0.00 ~ ' ,r.~: o:oo:. 0.00 } O.OOx !I ,ct} J .    ~ Periodicals 121 .00 135.00 .,la(:\",.,:,, . 135.00. 135.00 I 0:0,Q'i.i Printing \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 5,033.07 ~ir I. 5;500,00); 5,245.00 i 5,250.oci ' ' ' . ''';; Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,717.50 ' .,,,;t, 7!00.0Q';,\u0026gt;, 1,554.00 t ,700,00,, Rent 48,860.00 48,869.80 J~,; ' so!s9,1:oo;; 50,691.00 1, 52,564;00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 434.95 If ' 400.0\u0026lt;r ~, -1;' -'4QQ.OO.\\ 252.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 ,\u0026gt;;t!\\'f'Y((\"._'j,~M.  ~ l   .\"+.o:oa~ 0.00 r,. (Yf o~oo! Salaries 405,419.00 405,251.10 f. ,, .3 ' 32.,, 04'2.,. 0'Q\\ ; 332,042.00 t ' ' ~, . ,;,  300,603;00;t Benefits 80,018.00 78,447.40 t ~i:7,~(3'-fr-OO' 75,311 .00 I .742;322.0(( Staff Development 0.00 0.00 F'' .. 0.00,.; 0.00 }. o.oBJ (,.,;.' r, 'p ' Supplies 6,000.00 5,403.11 ~  4',000:0.0.l: 4,000.00 3,500;00J, ,. 1~075:00~ 11 Travel 2,459.00 2,013.54! 1~525',ooH ; 1,066.00 ,, ... ,s1t.om I' Insurance 712.00 572.00 - 572.00 1, 600.00t  ~ =-ig.~:-. .... ~~~-.r ,:, ,'\"' ' 1:,Jotat,Scpe.n difuresj. , \"; II!,@  ' '  :,of.,:. ' ' 1Jif 565';\"~2~oof Y,i,.i;, ' -\";  . i ,if; 559,~;J.1:19'f 7: 480,79;1:0ro- . 480,.,139:00: ~ 446:739.00;\"- Difference (Income minus Expenditures 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 3,596.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2003-04 Budget 8,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually oras a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04- Budget' 5,000.00 2003-04-Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page.4 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003--04 Budget 121.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003--04 Budget 1,700.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003--04 Budget 48,860.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691.00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2003--04 Budget 400.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31 ,173 Act 11 of 1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive paymentfor annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 28th year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are' over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 80,018.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 78,447.40 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 75,311 .00 B e1 o w 1s a b re akd own b, yeat egoryof eac h emp ovee ' s 2004 -05 b U dl g ete d frin1 ge b ene fit s: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21 .48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 fiir~''~---,,1: \"?t!J.\"J''''_4:'. ~- il({~.(\"'l\"!-ls' ~~r~'t ::1\u0026lt;z;4,'3,:,7 ,.8 ~11f 1~11 893:s.i ti . .. .,. ' ,. r , '': i rozsfoa~ 1f; I,, ,2~s tf)~~-n ~ ' ~1\"' ~ ;pi~S'i:lj' Tobi ~-...., fl':~~ :ffe)J~ ~~-,- ,,,.j: . ,., \" !i,\u0026gt; if'_ 12;a:m::oo.~- ( 12.t:~ ;:_258,76ll f1l, '-75}3~1~1:,fJ Page6 - - , ., ', ' \\\". - Below is a breakdown b ee's 2005-06 bud benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital . Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits. Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3,120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 'T,otal' Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or-items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05' Estimated Expenditures- 4,000.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one-of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance. coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures. 572.00- 2005~06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase irrthe annual premium: 2004-05 estimated expenditures 572.00 P-age:7 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .EducatiWn May 25, 2006 Gene Arkansas SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  LittJe Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 STATE.BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair.- Dr.; Jeanna.Wesbnoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice-Chair: Diane\u0026gt;Tatum,,Pine Bluff Members:: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle. .. Dr. Calvin-King; Marianna: ., Randy lawson; Bentonville~ .. Dr. \u0026amp;'en-Mays; Clinton- .. MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock; .. Dr. Naccaman-Williams; Springdale. ArrEqua/ Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 .  omcEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2006. \\ Respectfully Submitted, Je~,i/b Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel _ Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY ,2 6 2006  . . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL . . OFFiCE OF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI CpUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,_ ET AL DEFENDANTS  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progres~ the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2: Actual as of May 31 , 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Lastday of each month, August-June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1771","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School districts","Little Rock School District","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1771"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["41 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for SMART/THRIVE    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3989) to file and serve Dr. Catterall' s preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education. The motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD must filed the preliminary evaluation on Year-Round Education by 5 p.m., Friday, January 13, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 ~~EIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICTOF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFACEOF DBEBREBATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 20, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.ha2:emeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ilj.com iohnwalkeratty@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. 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 Isl Christopher Heller 2 --------- ---------------' ' -,. CREP Cttntu for Reseord, in EducotionolPolicy  I , n.i i 0,J! 1 '; ,-: i, eh!:1.:.-:f:;,,t1' .. ,)  1:: ., ~ ~-::v ~ ),-:~4~ '_ihle ~c:r.:~; ::cri--o: t:1;5ff,c t ~ RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING   ~ Con1pc1)'.:\u0026gt;Learning  DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005R te ~VED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Case No. 4:82CV866WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, JAN 3 2006 OFflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY TO JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its reply to Joshua's response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, states: The proposed Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") budget currently before the Court for approval, is the culmination of a months long collaboration of each of the MRC 's members, including the Joshua Intervenors, which began in February 2005. On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the MRC, by a unanimous vote of 5-0, approved the final budget for the 2004-2005 school year as well as the proposed budget for 2005-2006. The Joshua Intervenors' representative was absent for the vote. The MRC requested the Court's approval of the final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and the proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year on or about September 22, 2005. On November 14, 2005, Joshua filed objections to the proposed budget for the MRC for the 2005- 2006 school year, seeking explanations for the increases in three areas in the proposed budg~t for 2005-2006 as compared to the interdistrict magnet school's actual expenditures for the 2004- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 4 - 2005 school year. The LRSD will respond to each of Joshua's objections in the order listed in their November 14, 2005, filing to the Court: 1. The $114,676.00 increase in special education costs from actual 2004-2005 expenses as compared to and 2005-2006 is explained by the following: (a) a half-time teaching position is recommended to increase to a full-time position at Parkview High School at a projected increase of approximately $17,000.00; (b) the LRSD salary scale is designed to reward educational advancement. Due to the efforts of certain employees, a projected increase of approximately $16,000.00 in salaries will occur during the 2005-2006 school year; (c) the MRC proposed line item budget for special education expenses also includes approximately $76,000.00, to replace employees who departed the LRSD with more senior and better educated - employees; (d) finally, of the $114,676.00 proposed increase for special education costs, $5,000.00 is proposed for incremental salary increases for current employees remaining with the LRSD, thus earning an additional year of experience. 2. The $239,855.00 increase in material and supply costs, is directly related to the LRSD' s adoption of new reading, language arts, English and journalism textbooks throughout the District, for all LRSD schools including the six stipulation magnets schools. While an additional $281,792.00 was added to the proposed MRC budget for 2005-2006 for the purchase of new textbooks for students, classroom material and supplies decreased by $41,937.00, creating the net increase of $239,855.00. Likewise, LRSD' s operating budget incurred the same cost increase for textbook adoptions and its budget includes an additional $1 ,588,852.00 while other material and supply - costs decreased by $234,617.00. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 3 of 4 3. The $258,640 increase in indirect costs relates to the administrative fee that the LRSD is authorized to charge to the magnet budget for administration of the magnet schools as outlined in the March1989 Pulaski County School desegregation case settlement agreement. The administration fee is determined using the restricted program indirect cost rate calculated periodically by the Arkansas Department of Education. Prior to June 29, 2005, the LRSD Statecalculated restricted program rate was 7.08%. On June 29, 2005, the State released new calculations for use in the 2004-2005 school year and future years changing the rate to 8.25%. Although, the State increased the rate to 8.25%, the $2,194,000.00 in the 2005-2006 proposed budget for indirect costs represents a revised rate of approximately 8.23%. 4. The closures of the Mitchell and Rightsell facilities are unrelated to the MRC' s proposed budget. The two schools were closed as a result of low enrollment and outdated - physical structures, making their continued use operationally and fiscally inefficient. The proposed MRC budget will not reduce the provision of services and educational programs to LRSD students in non-magnet or majority black schools. Moreover, because the State, PCSSD and NLRSD contribute financially to the operation of the six stipulation magnet schools, Joshua's argument that the proposed MRC budget tends to disfavor students in majority black schools is incorrect. LRSD spends less to operate its stipulation magnet schools due to the contributions from the State and the two other school districts. WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, Little Rock School District requests that the proposed MRC budget be approved as submitted. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 1212212005 Page 4 of 4 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I 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. ha!!emeier@ag.s tate.ar.us sjones@mwsQ:w.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@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. 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 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4SfATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.stnte.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203,.1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer -- - - - - --- - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, S~li~ 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005R ~e ~i\\tE D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COlJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification- of such filing to the following: mark.hae-emeier@ag .state. ar. us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@j1j .com iohnwalkerattv@ao1.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher-Heller 2 CREP Center for Research in d11cational Policy Center tor Researd1 in Edumtiorml P,~i,;y Thr, UniV\u0026lt;-\u0026gt;..rsily of V,emphis 325 Browning H,~! Memp-his. Tennessee 38152 Toil Free 1-B6o-37C-G14i REt;l:IVED JAN 5 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for SMART / THRIVE in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 27, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice 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 sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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. 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 A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 69 CREP Ctnttr for RtJtarclt in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University oi f/emphis 325 Br011ming Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 - Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1760","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Project management","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1760"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["17 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to the show cause hearing of Monday, November 7, 2005; District Court, Joshua's witness summaries; District Court, response to Court's October 31, 2005, order - Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, Joshua's response to the court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the court's order of November 7, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV - 3 2005 DE8EBREajV,b~ 8~NITORJNa PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD's Motion for Excused Absence (Doc. No. 3961) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts.gov - o:ared ecf@ared . uscourts.gov 91essage-Id:\u0026lt;5l2094@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Bee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"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 11/1/2005 at 10:47 AM CST and filed on 11/1/2005 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.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3962 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3962,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005244 Docket Text: ORDER re (3961] granting Request filed by Pulaski County Special School District for an excused absence . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 11/1/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document ~ riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=ll /1/200 5] [FileNumber=512093-0] [5el74b586773ed0230654b2ff6782410ddaf90592349b8d34ebe9e8fb838193bb8219d5e7deb637 37eb5a09d3233276cfeb29684853d6c3748clfdl47bc9d63b]] 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, belecia .bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com _ :82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R . Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. a,9 Hudson Street 9:uite 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .,I - ,,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 7 2005 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAl\\OM MOMtlORlMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005 The Court's Order of June 30, 2004 was explicit and understood by the parties. This is reflected by the fact that no party sought clarification or other action thereon. The LRSD officials appear to oppose the remedy set forth by the Court. It is reflected in their inactions and overt actions as well as set forth below. 1. LRSD's evaluation plan is based in large part upon student achievement data being assembled by the ADE in connection with the \"No Child Left Behind\" requirements which the Arkansas Department of Education is charged with overseeing. 2. In previous years, the ADE distributed student achievement data in one phase. Those data were normally made available to LRSD and similar districts by July 1 of each year. 3. The LRSD assembled an essentially new staff for the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) between September 2004 and November 2004. 4. The LRSD failed to understand the ADE's timing for the release of student achievement data to LRSD regarding the 2004-2005 results. 5. The ADE changed the process during the summer of 2004 in order to address additional grade levels, to establish new \"cut-off' scores for determining \"proficiency,\" and for other ADE purposes. 6. Between July 1, 2004 and December 1, 2004, ADE officials created committees to address new testing issues contemplated by the \"No Child Left Behind\" Act. 7. As of September 23, 2004, three months after the Court's June 30, 2004 Order, the District had not hired Dr. Steve Ross. See notes of Gene Jones, p. 2. Indeed, Dennis Glasgow, Acting Associate Superintendent, reported that sentiment was against using him because he was not an advocate for the LRSD. See G.J. Memo, p. 1. 8. On December 9, 2004 the ADE distributed a video document to LRSD school officials which notified the PRE that test data distribution from ADE would be delivered in two rather than one phase as had been done in the past. The second \"phase\" was to be distributed in the \"fall\" of 2005. The ADE was explicit in notifying the LRSD that Phase I data would not be sufficient to allow a determination of appropriate student placement on the benchmark examinations. Phase II data, due in the fall, would allow placement of students into one of four rating categories. A copy of the video is being delivered to the Court by the ADE. 9. LRSD should therefore have known in December 2004 that additional time was . necessary in order for it to comply with the time requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 10. That the LRSD knew in December 2004 that additional time was necessary to meet the Court's October 1, 2005 deadline for filing the step 2 evaluations is reflected in the response - for documents to Mr. Phil Kaplan dated October 31, 2005. Therein, Mr. Gene Jones reflects that on December 16, 2004, ODM met with PRE staff and explained that the \"states benchmark tests will not be available in electronic format until September of each year. The group thought they should consult with the outside consultants before deciding how to proceed.\" 11. In February 2005, Mr. Heller wrote Mr. Walker to explain that he intended \"to ask the Court to extend the deadline for filing evaluations.\" See Ex. A, hereto. Heller attached letters from Dr. Stephen Ross and Mr. James Wohlleb at the time. Dr. Ross referenced past time experiences with ADE. Mr. Wohlleb expected the ADE data by mid-July. 12. The Wohlleb and Ross letters reflect that neither they nor PRE had an understanding that the ADE would be providing the data in two phases; and that the necessary electronic data needed for the step two evaluations would not be available until the fall (October) 2005. 13. Ross was not hired until February 1, 2005. Accordingly, he had no contact with the ADE before that and would not have knowledge about the actual dates that he could expect the electronic data necessary for his work. 14. On March 15, 2005, Mr. Heller informed ODM that LRSD would not be requesting an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for the reason that LRSD expected to have the data by July 1, 2005. IfLRSD didn't get the data by July 1, then Mr. Heller indicated he would then ask for an extension of time from the Court. 15. Mr. Heller has indicated that he spoke with Joshua Counsel Walker in June or July, 2005 and that Mr. Walker announced opposition to delay. Response to the Court dated October 4, 2005. Mr. Heller took no further action regarding the matter. Opposition by counsel is not a sufficient basis to excuse the District's failure to promptly act. 16. Between March 2005 and September 29, 2005, the District reduced the PRE staff by - three people, all of whom had been previously reported to the Court as \"highly trained professional\" staff members. They have not been replaced. This is a further indication of the seriousness with which the LRSD addressed the Court Order. 17. Between June 30, 2004 and November 3, 2005, the only contact between Dr. Gail Potter, ADE Associate Director for Curriculum and Research and Dr. DeJarnette involved whether a non certified staff member could hold the position of testing coordinator. That occurred a few weeks ago. Neither Dr. DeJarnette, nor Mr. Heller, made any inquiry of whether the required data could be produced within the time frame approved by the Court. D.r. Potter indicated that it could have been produced although there were some costs associated with earlier production. 18. Dr. Potter further indicated that the LRSD had not met with her or her office staff regarding LRSD's compliance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 19. According to Dr. Potter, the 2003 Legislature required the two phase process for production of Benchmark data. Mr. Heller, therefore, should have known in the fall of 2004 and the spring of2005 that the two phase process would change the time equation set forth by the Court. 20. The reasons proffered by the LRSD establish that they knew, and knew that they should have known, that the deadline of October 1, 2005 for plan compliance could not be met and they deliberately refused to promptly so inform the Court and seek delay. 21. The excuse for failure to seek early Court approval for compliance with its October 1, 2005 deadline is that the district's counsel was busy with another important case. The Court notes that the district counsel are several; that the District is represented by the States's largest law firm, and that other counsel are assigned to work on this case; and that when called upon to reply to the Show Cause Order herein, the District and its lead counsel took it seriously and. promptly complied. They hired not only outside counsel for Mr. Heller but for the District as well. That counsel filed the pleading for the District. The District could equally seriously have addressed the June 30, 2004 Order. Its refusal to do so is contemptuous. The action required was simple; the District's refusal to promptly request an extension oftime was wilful. Respectfully submitted, ls/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 A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, I 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 \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC IO IO West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John W. Walker ..,,:;ui. vv1J..J..1Lvvv a.\"t. ii:vo:'i.J. - zrom to Pl/~ FRIDAY FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 www.fridayfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 371Q100 Subject: JOSHUA'S WITNESS.SUMN!ARIES. Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :08 Pages\"Sent: 5 . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW..JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSIIlJA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DA TED OCTOBER 31, 2005 The Court seeks as explanation for LRSD' s failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1, 2005requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain wh.y delay was not promptly sought. The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Court's limited concern would be addressed on November 7, 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 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 20 minutes 2) 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 3) Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJarnette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses, Ors. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller; (b) her minimal involvement in  the process; and, (c) her failw:e 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 4) Joy Springer: (a) will address Mr. Heller's contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller informed Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005; (b) that JWhen 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) Joshua's efforts to be involved in 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 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) 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 6) Mr. Gene Jones: will addtess the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice givei;i by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response ofthe LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted. ls/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 uou; v~, ,.J.i.1 ~vv;.; \u0026lt;:1.. c. .1..i. : .i.v: vo - .i:rom - to Pb/ 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11J0212005 Page 4 of4 CERTIFICATE Q)f SERYJCE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, l 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 \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Cbachkin NA.'\\CP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, .Inc. 99 Hudson Street L Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger- Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center. Street Suite200 -Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn. Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn. P:A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John w. Walker 4- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO COURT'S OCTOBER 31. 2005 ORDER - LRSD'S WITNESS SUMMARIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In response to the Court's 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 witness will take thiliy minutes. LRSD does not expect to can Dr. Brooks a,; a witness, as the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. l. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring l 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 LRSD's implementation of the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that LRSD' s Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful; that he had access to all relevant document,; 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 Step 2 program evaluations; that OC:11~ V.)/.1..1./.GVVO a\"'t .1.1:01:.L::\u0026gt; - .from to p3/ 11 PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work; that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Court's compliance remedy; that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSD' s compliance; that PRE, as far a.c; 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 Arkansac; benchmark exams for their completion; that such data was not available in a form useful to LR.SD' s experts before October 1; that the reporting of Arkansas benchmarkresults is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education; that there is nothing LRSD could have done to ha,;ten 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 3\u0026lt;Yh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets LiUle Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testify that she is director of PRE and has been since September 17, 2004; that implementing the compliance remedy has been PRE' s top priority during  the time she hac; been it,; director; that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy; that LR.SD hired Dr. James S. Catterall, a qualified expert, to evaluate it,; 2 uou\u0026lt;. v~1.1.11 ..cuuo at: .1.L: o,: 4;j - trom - to p4/ ll \"I Year-Round Education (YRE) program; that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross. a qualified expert, to perform the Step 2 evaluations of SMART/fHRIVE, Compa'is 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 LRSD' s 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 resultc; 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 requirement,; 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 Arkansac; benchmark examinations; that in order to be useful to Ors. 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 Arkansa,; benchmark examination result'i is entirely within the control of the Arkansa'i 3 ot:;ui, v~1.1J.1:.cvvo a-c .1.1:::\u0026gt;tj : .L4 - rom - 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 wa,; made in good faith bac;ed 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 LRS_D - 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. 0. Box 951521 Los 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 Court's 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 4 Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58 :36 - from - to pS/11 Court's 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 wa.,; completed in a timely manner and that he was 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 a.-;signment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3Qlh \u0026amp; 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 a,; that of Dr. Karen DeJarnette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 7220 I 5 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 Arkansac; benchmark examinations in particular; that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be releac;ed in July 2005; that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committees were \"working to reset the cut scores for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams\" and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phac;es; that Phac;e I would consist of cd' s containing raw score reportc; which would be shipped to districtc; no later than July 1, 2005; that \"assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\"; and that \"Phase II 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 releac;ed in mid-November; that releac;e of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and iL'i contractors; that LRSD has done nothing to delay the relea'ie 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 \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller will testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29, 2005 - ba'ied on a good faith belief, after rea'ionable inquiry, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6 ben~ 03/11/2005 at 11 : 59:25 - from - to p8/ll true; that he filed a response to the Court's 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 oppo\\tunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSD's Response to Order\" probably occurred in February or March rather than June or July. The principal reamn for not filing LRSD' s Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsel's 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 7 bent 0~11112005 at 11:59:47 - from - to p9/11 in July and that the October 1, 2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJarnette 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 fa'ihion because of his involvement in the Lake View cac;e. 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) :({aplan, Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan (q) kbmlaw. net Isl Philip E. Kaplan 8 .:::\u0026gt;t::Ul:. V;j/l.l./,UU::\u0026gt; at lZ:OO:OZ - from - to pl0/11 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005, I 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 foJJowing: mark..hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: 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 Isl Philip E. Kaplan 9 ~eni u~111,~uuo at 11:56:33 - from to pl/ 11 FRIDAY FRIDA\\ ELDREUGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY P ARTNERSIIlP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-349-J www.fridayflnn.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended onlv for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dis1nbution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 3710100 Subject: Attached Response to October 31, 2005 Order Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :55 Pages Sent: 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-1 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITI'LE ROCK DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MR.C'') for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year. The MR.C communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 22, 2005 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the :MR.C's final budget for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed 2005-2006 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE , ,,. . \"' Case 4:82-cv-,Q0~66-WRVV.~TR ~ocumeJJt 3972-2 Filed 11/08/?005 Page 1 of 16 1V1agnet Kevzew Committee 1 ~ North M!1fn Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758--5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {EMmail} September 22, 2005 The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. Judge, u. s. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Rece,veo w SEP 2 8. 2005 U n,S. R! Wllson .6. .. o. Drstrtct J , Jr. Of Ar'\"-anUsadsg e On September 20, 2005, Mark Milholleo, CbiefFimmci.al Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Cnnmrittee with the final figures for the 2004-05 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1) and was furwarded to MRC members prior to their vote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of S--0, with the Joshua Intervenors representative absent, approved the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2005--06. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Cotnt for approval: 1. FINAL 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $27,964.934.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditme of $7,237.00, ca1culated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,864.00 students. Actual attendance records of3,862.90 students set the final budget figure at $27,948,760.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure at $7,235.00, or $2.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. Thii final 2004-05 document reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2004. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue thePossihilities of Magnet Scht\u0026gt;ofEnrollment~ ~ ~ I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-ilTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 16 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- September 22, 2005 2. PROPOSED 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS B~T The total proposed budget for the 2005--06 school year is $28,849,578.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,862.90, which results in a perpupil expenditure of $7,468.00 and an increase of $233.00 over the 2004-05 actual rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, fiinge ben~ insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2004-2005 flnaliud budget in the amount of$27,948,760.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$7,23S.OO, as well as the proposed 2005-2006 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed~ mahttauring the quality of the Stq)ulation magnet !!Chools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of~ magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent .poS811\u0026gt;1e. , Sincerely, ~~~ Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Pt-Qposed 2005-2006 Stipulation Magttet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring . J, .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 . . 6.0 $574,294 $574,594 $577,006 02 10.0 $700,207 $700.207 10.0 $704187 03 S allsts 40.0 $1,968 829 $1,994125 40.0 $2,060,208 04 Counselors 13.4 $750109 $711,567 13.4 $745,756 05 MedlaS 6.5 $351986 $335,378 6.5 $333386 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $132,463 $132409 3.0 $135929 07 Mu 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 7.6 $427,864 $433,041 7.6 $442,679 10 ucatfon 9.6 $457,289 $506 10.0 $621519 11 Glfled 5.4 $294,408 $291 ,443 5.4 $296,023 12 Classroom 194.3 $9,737,515 $10 114 194.3 $9,892,360 13 Substitutes 0.0 $268,000 $257,280 0.0 $293,000 14 Other-Kind arten 16.0 $761,295 $776 058 16.0 $729,204 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 311.7 $16,424.258 $16,827 3122 $16 831.258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.4 $608558 $602,689 20.4 $621 784 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $277,088 $263,501 6.0 $273,520 17 CUstodlans 30.0 $598 78 $572,068 30.0 $572,556 18 nServlces 1.0 494 $52,231 1.0 $65 19 rofesslonals-Other 6.0 $211167 $213,521 6.0 $176869 20 Other--Aldes 23.8 $513183 $598,784 23.8 $490 064 21 F $5446,402 $6,029,813 .  $0 TOTAL SUPP 872 $7720170 $7332608 $7744958 TOT $24,144,426 $24159815  $24,576 18 PURCHASED 22 Utilities 590300 620,218 : 589,700 SERVICES 23 Travel 42800 42,698 , . 40,000 (30} 24 Maintenance reements $0 $0 $0 - 25 Other 267,352 251,864 285368 TOTAL 30 900 452 914,780 915,068 MATERIAI..S, 26 sOfl!ce $0 $39 $40 SUPPLIES 27 lassroom 588,910 582,488 811,870 (40) 28 46795 31 586 45,470 29 Other 23,300 27685 , ..~,: 24,273 TOTAL 40 659,005 641,798 881 ,653 CAPITAL 30 211,819 105 033 70315 OUTLAY 31 $0 $0 $0 50 32 Other $0 $488 $0 TOTAL 50 211,819 105,521 70,315 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 11 541 6,986 7,800 60 34 Other $0 $0 $0 TO 11,541 6,986 7,800 TOT 1782 817 1,669 085 1,874,836 TOT 25 927.243 25,828,900 26,451 052 TOT AL LINE ITEM ECO 2,037,691 2,119,860 :---- ,: $ 2,398,526 :__ \"if'. - till ~ t:in~~'st~f MAGBK06.xls.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 4 of 16 .i,  ~ ;~-;~:~i,:l;jji w~9 ~ni '~Mt=;~~=M,iJWff 2 :~~~ 6 Jtc Stioends $35 557 $43 227 $29 600 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 849,008 $1,935 360 $2.194.000 Vocational $32 800 $16,764 $32 800 Athletlcs $81 826 $86.423 $101 626 Gifted Proarams $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $31.667 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 ~~ $0 $0 w English $1.500 $1,431 $1 500 Soeclal Education $4,000 $3.990 $4 000 Curriculum $2 000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $2.037,691 $2,119 860 $2,398 526 State of Arkansas $13,982467 $13,974041 LRSD $8,842,512 $8,958802 PCSSD $3,352998 $3336,095 NLRSD $1 786,959 $1,679 822 $1,733 20 Total Costs $27964934 $27948,760 $28,849 578 MAGBK06:xls, ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 5 of 16 . -:~ -::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-:-; . . .: ...... ?~=:~::::::::~~::: if :: : - . 75 1.0 94,975 STAFF 02 Assl Ptin. 1.0 $ 70,337 70,337 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 363,816 370,483 7.0 $ 364,972 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 116,229 87,048 2.0 $ 95,364 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 42,588 33,724 1.0 $ 43,n3 06 Art-PerfJProd. 3.0 $ 132,463 132,409 3.0 $ 135,929 07 Muslc 0.0 $0 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 o.o 10 s I Education 2.0 $ 121,944 $ 121,944 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 54,561 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,513,308 $ 1,630,112 30.6 $ 1,587,319 13 Substitutes o.o $ 45,000 $ 43,200 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kin arten 6.0 $ 238,380 $ 275,604 6.0 $ 222,523 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2 793601 $2914396 54.6 $2836,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 48,344 42,964 2.0 $ 54,128 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 46,709 49476 1.0 $ 49476 17 Custodians 81 000 n;i:31 4.0 $ 82029 18 Information Services 10,918 8,707 0.2 $ 10,928 19 Para rofesslonals-other $0 0.0 20 Other-Aides 121.n3 $ 106,757 6.0 $ 112,330 21 F e Benefits 20 910,605 $ 828,983 .-.. - ..- $ 922,519 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $1,225349 $1,114,104 13.2 $1,231 411 TOTAL {10-20) $4,018,950 $4,028,500 ~ . $4,068,108 PURC~ED 22 Utllltles 73,000 $ 68,886 -:-:.;::-~:;.::::::-:;~:-'-,:~-: $' 73,000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 5,000 $ 3,243 ...... ..... ; $ 5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 :~.::::::;:;;::;::::~;::;::::;:;::;~-: ..,.,,, , ... , ... ,,,' 25 Other 31,440 ,..:~.,,..-..,.: '' \u0026lt; $ 30650 TOTAL 30 $109,440 $106,650 MATERIALS, 26 Prln rs Office $0 .. SUPPLIES 27 R ular Classroom 90381 $ 104,328 $ 97,448 (40} 28 Media 9,500 $ 9,354 $ 11,000 29 Other 3,100 $ 3,989 $ 3,812 TOTAL 40 $102981 $117,671 ,:......, .... $112,260 CAPITAL 30 12.000 $ 4336 ,:,-~.y. -- $ 7000 ., ' OUTLAY 31 fr etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTAL 50 $12000 $7,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 2,500 1 000 60 34 Other $0 TOT $2,500 $1 $1 000 TOTAL $226,921 $228,910 TOTAL $4.245,871 .8 $4 7,018 TOTAL LINE ITEM $308 060 0 '' $353,589 : ,  *-\"Atd\u0026amp;N%% .f. .. ::: 'f ~ :m wm .: B!6USN Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 6 of 16     . Aihletic,s $0 $0- $0 ' ' GJfted  , $1'63 $1~ RantServtcee $$,~ $6,060 . . .. $237 : . $229 . ~7 --- -  -- ..- ------ -  -  - - UQat!Qn:=- -=--=- ::-..:....=.: :....c...;._ .. - ~  ..=;.:_ :_:_~ - - : ' ---~-  - - . . . .. . . : ___ =._  .-. :   .... ~- --  -...=..:...-'.:...--- -~---. ---~~~-~::::.... '  - Tota!J.lne Items. t   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 7 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED .SERVICES (30) 05 Med!aS 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 2 13 Substitutes 14 other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 11 custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 21 Fringe Beneflts{20) .~ i $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 TOTAL 10-20 ... ,. ....... . 22 Utflltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other  TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, 26 ars Offu:e SUPPLIES t-2--7'-+===r;..;;C.,.:tass=roo\"'--m---- (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTlAY 50 29 Other 30 32 Other TOTAL 40 TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEM SECOND PA :,,.,,  ,,, . '.:'i $0 $0 $0 47,284 n.2sa 928 538 38,000 265,011 $2122,798 88,824 38127 76,000 10,918 $ $0 86,934 $ 716,338 $ $1,017,141 $3139, $0 10,000 $ 1,541 $ $0 1,541 $ $179 751 $3 319,690 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48,843 1.0 $ 74,295 1.4 1 022,752 21 .3 $ 36,480 0.0 $ 243055 5.0 $ $2,185 709 42.2 80,359 3.0 $ 40116 1.0 $ 70,190 4.0 $ 8,707 0.2 $ 0.0 154,392 4.4 $ 719,525 .... , . $ $1,073,289 $3,258998 53 791 12.6 89,431 ::: :-- 5,337 3903 : 98671 3,268 51,587 nno 937,752 38000 246,487 $2,088,601 82,152 41,328 75503 10,928 97,165 708,611 30 013 --- 95,513 nsoo 7,500 3125 88,125 8,500 8500 1,000 1,000 $193138 $3 297,427 $293,462 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 8 of 16 . e ... Athle.tlcs ..: .:- ::. - - . - xxxxxx - . -    - Totaf Une Items -  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 9 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICJ:S (30} MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTIAY 50 OTHER 60 04 Counselors 1 05 Medias 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 16 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kind arten TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 15 Secretar!es 1 16 Nurses 1 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 21 Frln e Beneffts(20) ~ : $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 Utilltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LINE ITEMS - SECOND PA 10,918 $ $0 77,786 $ 528,767 $ $765,423 327983 33800 S 3000 $ $0 29140 $65,940 $0 50784 1,795 2,000 54,579 136,519 $0 $0 136,519 500 $0 500 $ $257536 $2,585521 93,472 $0 247,541 51.456 1 61 ,583 1 70,775 54561 817 347 26880 104,205 $1527,820 38,153 28357 64,868 8,707 $741,165 $2,268 986 : 29,733 13,451 1 68,322 54,561 728,828 28,000 105,715 $1,523,399 30736 34548 67,314 10,928 60,630 510,816 27900 $68,900 35800 2,500 1,953 40,253 16904 16,904 1,000 1,000 $127,057 $2 365,429 $179,105 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 . . Filed 11/08/2005 Page 10 of 16' .. : . ./\" '!:dl.acatlolil - . -_ff . . - . . , . . . .. . ... . ~:;;::::~::::_; ::_: ::;.::::_ ~ _ _ .:, ...- _- _ - _ --_i f_---,:,:-_-=-_--._ ...~ . ,~~=,-:=,c;:;,,.,:~----=~=\"1.:-::-- . .  . - - - -- -.  ... .__ . ---- - . - . .. . . . XXXXX)( _, . ---- - . -- -- ----: . __ ~- --- --- - - -- -- -------~-' l00000t   . .. - ' -~:. Total Une Items -_: _ $151.496 . . - $157918 $119105 - - - - ' .:. 'Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 11 of 16 70337 283,755 ors 1 75572 1 05 Media 1 54,443 54,388 1 06 M-\"Perf.JProd. 0.0 $0 .o 07 Music 0.0 $0 o.o 08 Fo 0.0 $0 o.o 09 0.0 $0 0.0 10 ducatlon 1.5 $ 54,633 $ 51091 1 75,776 11 2.0 $ 108 026 $ 108026 109,181 12 Classroom 21.0 $ 1010,387 $ 1009 996 21 1,015,873 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30,000 $ 28,800 54,000 14 other-Klnd arten 3.0 $ 153,344 153195 154499 TOTA!. CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1934 678 $1,928 736 $1,987.218 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 77,568 $ 80878 86,520 STAFF 16 Nurses 1. 60086 $ 58864 1 58,864 17 Custodians 3. 68,278 $ 62,801 75,355 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,918 $ 8,707 10,928 19 Para[\u0026gt;tofesslonals-Other 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 55,023 $' 60,1 59,654 21 F e Beneffts(20} ~ $: 650,230 $ 544,76 660,432 TOTA!. SUPPORT SALARY 12.5 $922,100 $951,752 TOTAL 1Q..20 $2856m $2,938970 PURCHASED 22 Ut!lltles 60,000 60000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 3000 2000 (30) 24 Maintenance reements $0 25 Other 24527 $ 28,205 OTAL 30 87527 $ 90,205 MATERIALS, 26 Office $0 SUPPLIES 27 room 73500 62,520 82,600 (40) 28 7,100 16 4 700 29 3,200 3,084 2,904 83800 65620  90,204 CAPITAL 30 4,300 33,234 ;' :  .. 6,911 OUTI.AY 31 Ir, etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTA!. 50  4,300 6,911 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1 500 1500 60 34 Other $0 TO 1,500 2,5 1,500 TOT $177,127 $178, $188,820 $3,033,904 $2,922,99 $3127,790 TOT AL LINE ITEM ~ $233,789 $237,34 ;:, B.'1:~' : 111.or :. Qt . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 12 of 16 ' 2005--06 $2150 $0 $260055 $0 Athletf $0 $122 Plant $3793 $59 $0 178 !al Education 237 xxxxxx XXXXXlC Total Line Items $233,789 $237347 $267068  \u0026gt; I  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 13 of 16 as Medias 08 Art-PerfJProd. 07 09 12 Classroom 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 OTHER 60 17 Custodians 18 Information Servfces 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Frfn e Beneffls(20) .  .. TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL 10-20 22 Ut!Utles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 26 rs Office 27 Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PA ff:i@JtiS. ...,:. Ut:..Jr' .. 3.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 2.4 $172,922 $61583 $0 $0 $0 152,554 $85872 $0 $2,444329 $64,000 $0 $3401,755 $135,216 $40,000 $110000 $10,918 $25,000 $160107 $133,327 $2553,290 $61440 $3582,022 $140,551 $40 116 $107,978 $8,707 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 $174,168 $61 ,583 $167,562 $205 870 $2,562,745 $64,000 $3704,589 $144,132 $41 328 $109,965 $10,928 $78,162 $75,288 2.4 $75,615 $1,108,720 $1,057,353 '' :  :,,, $1,183,245 $60735 $259,735 $0 $129 600 $6,000 $6,000 $141,600 $26000 $0 $0 $26000 $3,000 $0 $281,814 $124,494 $5790 $6,960 $137,244 $44,358 $44,358 $630 $3,000 $630 $430 335 $464,047 $5,340,106 $5 476,062 $469 490 $4 70, 103 $15,000 $1000 $1,000 $511,469 $5 781,271 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 14 of 16  , - -- ' ' - - , - Attlleb Gffled ~ Edt,u:atfoll . ~ ' : - Gru~ .. , . -: . .-::...:....:: ,,..:....: )OQ0Q0( .c~-=~ - -  - .. TatalUnel!ems $470103 .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW,JTR. ~ Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 15 of 16 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 05 MedlaS 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 12 Classroom 13 substitutes 14 other-Kind arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 6.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 5.0 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 20 Other-Aides 3.0 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 UtllHles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, ~2;:.;:6;..+:,-Prl.;.;;n'-\"'cl=r;.;:;s..;:Offl=ce~--- - SUPPUES 27 R ular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 other CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 32 Other TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 other $486,691 $514,050 $226 317 $224 976 $50 499 $50 499 $0 $0 $0 $275310 $60020 $0 $3043,074 $63000 $0 $4608,865 $221,944 $45,878 $198 000 $10,905 $186,167 $87,505 $1,531,743 $2,282,142 $6891 007 $168,000 $24,800 $272,933 $80863 $3080,766 $60,480 $4688,522 $219,785 $46,572 $188 995 $8,697 $213,521 $84,946 $2,157,859 $6 846,381 : : $181,796 : $15 972 :._ 4.0 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 8.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 5.0 3.0 $0 $94300 $287,100 $125,483 :-:~ - - - : ' $0 $180,145 $13,400 $5000 $198,545 $23,000 $0 $0 $23000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $323,251 $39 $146,683 $9930 $6,967 $163 618 $19,837 $19837 $2701 JW% $105,050 $298904 $509,197 $230,123 $50499 $275117 $98,020 $3,059,843 $64,000 $4690 753 $ $10,915 $176,869 $84,670 $307522 $13,400 $6,980 $327942 $16,000 $16,000 $2,300 $511145 $509,406 $625 442 105.6 $7,402,152 $7,355.788 107.1 $7,582,118 62 259 \"'.'.' : . , .,,,::  . 296 Q!P.J.ii ~ 'YWM ,.Ml\\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Page 16 of 16 ~ . _ , - ', , v .;, .v.  . .,.-. 2004-05 2004-05 2005-08 ,500 $17,655 20750 $0 0 $0 Indirect $539n2 $556,534 $640,484 Vocational $18 513 $9,410 $18,611 Athletics $46,609 67851 $80 774 G rams $0 $0 $0 Plant $9,342 $9,106 $9,342 Read! $146 $144 $146 I $0 $0 $0 $438 $412 I Education $1168 $1147 Curriculum xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $621,488 $662,259 $n2,296 1,110.82 M. SAMUEL JONES, Ill DIRECT DIAL 501 688 881 2 11!: MAIL S.JONll!:S@MWSGW,COM LAW O FF IC ES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501  6888800 FAX 5016888807 November 10, 2005 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S .D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING !541 4 PINNACLE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 500 ROGE\"R8, ARKAN BA  72758 81 31 TELE~HONII!: 479484 5650 FAX 479484 !5880 I have the Court's Order dated November 8, 2005, respecting the MRC budget. On behalf of the PCS SD let me please state that it has no objection to the proposed budget. MSJ:ao cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. cf ~ones, III i. er Documents \"2-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 U.S. District Court Eastern Districf of Arkansas I \\J\"otice of Electronic Filing / fhe following transaltion was received ;om Jones, M. entered on 11/10/2005 at 4:20 PM :ST and filed on 11/10/2005 ' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 .cument Number: 3974 Docket Text: IBSPONSE re [3972] Order, by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) fhe following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stam-p: :sTAivlP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/10/2005] [FileNumber=520387-0 I [2b05c454b6626b279aaab8d9a110b52b6c7db27b72252a7882ceb0e89371e18c2ea )28d381e846109b4bd340956d9750d5a162780ela98686576276197543ee0]] t:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: \\.1ark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com,  Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, \\1ark Arnold. Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, .ecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov :hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net vi. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com ;tephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com )hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ;baron Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com rohn W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; springer@gabrielmail.com l:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: ...,layton R. Blackstock ~chell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 10 West Third Street )ost Office Box 1510 ~ittle Rock, AR 72203-1510 -.J\" orman J. Chachkin -.J\"AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. }9 Hudson Street ;uite 1600 -.J\"ew York, NY 10013 timothy Gerard Gauger \\rkansas Attorney General's Office :atlett-Prien Tower Building ;23 Center Street ;uite 200 jttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 -'ames M. Llewellyn, Jr rhompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn,.P.A. . i aW South Eighteenth Street ~t Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 8ffice of Desegregation Monitor 8ne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompso~ Thompson \u0026amp; Lleweltyn, P.A. i 12 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 R!CftVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NOV 14 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'OIDNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order regarding the Magnet Review Committee Budget, LRSD states that it has no objection to the budget and agrees that the budget should become effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2005, I 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 sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@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 Isl Christopher Heller R:x Dat e/Time 5013744187 P.002  NO'v . 15. 2005 NOV J. ~ LOO~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW.JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO THE  COURT'S ORDER OE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 PIAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, the Joshua Intervenors oppos~ the budget as presepted. I. There is no explanation for the increase in special education costs. 2. There is no e:xplanation for the substantial increase in the regular classroom material and supply costs. 3. There is no explanation for the material increase in the indirect costs. 4. To approve the budget as it is written by increasing costs will tend to favor students in racially balanced schools and disfavor students in majority black schools . This is so because double funding has materially been eliminated in the racially identifiable schools being closed (Mitchell and.Rightsell) and the district has engaged in budget cuts whi~h reduce services and - educational programs to the students who are enrolled in. o.onmagnet schools. Rx Date/ Time NOV-15-2005(TUE) 08:59 5013744187 \" NOV': f's. 2005 g : 30AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO. 163 L Wherefore, Joshua requests that the court set this matter for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. WalkeJ;, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF sytsem on this 14th day of November, 2005. LsUohn Y{. Walker P. 003  Rx Date/Time NOV-1 5-2005CTUE) 08: 59 ~ NOV. 15.2005 9:29AM JOHN W WALKER PA 5013744187 N0 . 163 JOHN W WALKER, P.A .. Attorney at La.v 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: November 15, 2005 To: Donna Creer Fax: 758-5366 Re: MRC Budget Sender: John W. Walker P.l/3 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVEALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374--3758\u0026gt;'1 The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged qnd confidential infonnation intended only for tho use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. P. 001 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its response to the Court's bench  ruling of November 7, 2005, states: 1. The Court has directed LRSD to file \"a proposed order which would - outline how this one matter will be handled until. we get the final evaluations as LRSD has agreed to do.\" 2. Dr. Ross now has all of the data he needs to complete the Compass Leaming, SMART/TIIRIVE and Reading Recovery evaluations. Dr. Ross expects to be able to produce preHminary evaluations of those three programs by December 21, 2005 and ''final drafts\" by mid-February, 2006. See November 11, 2005 letter from Dr. Ross to Dr. DeJamette attached. as Exhibit A. 3. Dr. Catterall requires scale scores from the 2005 benchmark exams in order to complete his evaluation of Year-Round Education. LRSD expects that the  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 5 scale scores needed by Dr. Catterall will be available within the next seven days. If that can be done, Dr. Catterall expects to produce a draft report by December 31, 2005 and a final report not later than February 3, 2006. See November 9, 2005 letter from Catterall to DeJarnette, attached as Exhibit B. 4. LRSD has a regulation (IL-R) which applies to the review and completion of program evaluations. A copy ofregulati.on IL-R is attached~ Exhibit C. The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department estimates that the requirements ofregulation IL-R can be met within the following amounts of time after a draft evaluation is received from an external consultant: a. The evaluation team meets with the evaluator to review the report and provide feedback - one week; b. The evaluator incorporates the feedback provided by the evaluation team and produces a \"near-final\" draft- one week; c. The stakeholders, including Joshua, ODM and the LRSD cabinet and Board review the near-final draft - 30 days; d. The LRSD Board discusses the report with the evaluator at the Board meeting immediately following completion of the 30 day review and approves the final evaluation report. 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 5 5. Given the time required by Drs. Ross and Catterall to complete their work, and for the review and approval process required by LR.SD regulation IL-R. LRSD proposes that the Court's Order concerning the completion of the 2004-05 Step 2 program evaluations contain the following language: a. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART ffHRlVE and Reading Recovery as soon as LRSD receives those reports from Dr. Ross. LRSD expects to receive those reports by December 21, 2005. b. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation report concerning Year-Round Education as soon as it receives that report from Dr. Catterall. LRSD expects to receive that report no later than December 31, 2005. c. If LRSD learns th.at it will not receive any preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the dates set forth above, it will immediately so inform the Court and the parties. d. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation repons discussed above, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in 3  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. Upon completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations with the Court and serve them upon ODM and Joshua. e. If it appears to LRSD that the final evaluation repo~s may be delayed for any reason, LRSD will so inform the Court and the parties. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order regarding the completion of the required four Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the proposals set forth in thisResponse to Order. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christqpher Heller 4  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/1712005 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Oerk of the Court using the C.M/BC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ai,State.ar.us sjones@mwsr7.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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. Capitol~ Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W, Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS November 11, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 s. Pulaski little Rock. AR 77W6 Dear Dr. DeJamette: Center for Research in EdUC!ltfonal Policy A lermenee Center of exce11ence 32S ~Ing Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Offlca: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free: 866,670.6147 Fex: 901.678.257 www mtrnPhlS.egu/s,p The spring 2005 benchmark scores have arrived for students in the three programs we are . evaluating for the Little Rock School District-Compass Leaming. SMARTITHRIVE. and Reading Recovery. While they do not include students' scale scores, the raw scores and perfonnance levels appear sufficient for our evaluations. In the nen few days. we will complete a review of the data files; assumina they are in usable form. we will then combine the benchmark scores with data collected during the past school year in preparation for our statistical analyses. Dr. Canen.11 and I agreed earlier that six weeks appears to be enough time for managing the data, analyzing the data, and writing our reports for your considaation. That means that the draft report will be ready for initial review during the Decemba holidays (target dau:: December 21. 2005) and our discussion of it will occur in January. ff there arc not extensive changes required. we plan to have the final drafts ready for you by mid-February. If we encounter any unanticipated problems or delays, we will notify you immediately on ~currence. Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions about this plan. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, PhD. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy I  Case 4:82-cv--00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 _u_N_IVE_R_s__m_ o_ F_c_A_LIF_o_R_N_IA_._L__os _A_ N_c_E_L_E_s____ _ --. . H:~~ ... k\u0026amp;O.CT  1M.V19  1ll\\llNC  I.OIMICll.11  a1vs-\u0026amp;  !AH DIieo  1AH Fl...0!800 ....,,_ - ~ - ~-- November 16, 2005 Karen DeJamett.e, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department tittle Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Utiie Rock. AR 77206-28'73 Dearl\u0026lt;aren: Onidua1c ScllOol off.duQl!on \u0026amp; Jnfornlion Studies r.o.Box951s,t LosAt1gdQ.CA 90095-1511 I understand that the 200S Benchmark iesults or studenfB participatf:ng in Year-Round P.ducatian have a:rlved at LRSD. They .include ~dents' raw scores and performance levels but not the 1eale scores. \u0026amp;cause of the need tQ link 2005 test scores with prior year test \u0026amp;cores a.s the only way to uses., progress in the YRE schools\u0026gt; I will need 2005 Benchmark scale scor~, l!1'\\d not taw test sco,:es to complete my analyses. As I stated earlier, the daia review, 8tatistical 8Nlyses, and composition of my draft :report will require about six week,. I still anticipate delivering a draft teport to you within 6 weeks of ~eivhig usable scale scares. A,suming these score, become available to m.e in the coming days, I would have a draft report to you by year'3 end and a final report to you not later than F~bruary 3, 2006. Sin\u0026amp;:erely, /\\~ 'Pt:dsor Vole~ (310) 8%$-S5'71 Pu: ($10)206-6293 l:;-m1il: jamucOgscla.11~la.cdu = EXHIBIT t Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff fnvolved in the evaluation of pr0grams required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations J Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved In its Board-approved Program EvaJuation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. {See Joint Committee on Standan:ls for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, T1 Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  UIIIH)' (U) - e'ialuatlons are lnfcrmatM, timely, and influential  Fauiblllty (F) - eveluations must be operable In the natural setting and must not consume more resourees then necessary  Propriety (?)  right:5 of Individuals must be protected  Accuracy (A)  evaluations should produce sound lnfOrmatlon Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of actMties that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include fonnative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots\". As rigor and fom,ality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs(++} indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses(+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and o1her examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note. however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports, ,_~ ,xH-I - ,--. 1 1c Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Fonna1lw Standard SUmmative lnfolmal Evaluation Procen evaluations Assessments {School Portia/las) Snaashots U1 Stakeholder Identification ++ ++ 0 0 U2 Evaluator Credibility ++ ++ + 0 U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection ++ 0 + + U4 Values Identification ++ + ++ + us Report Clarity ++ ++ + + U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination ++ + + 0 U7 Evaluation Impact ++ + + + F1 Practical Procedures ++ + + ++ F2 PolltJcal Viabillty ++ 0 0 0 F3 Cost Effectiveness ++ + + + P1 Service Orientation ++ ++ + + P2 Fonnal AQreements ++ + 0 0 P3 Rights of Human Subjects ++ ++ ++ ++ P4 Human Interaction ++ + 0 0 PS Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment ++ ++ + + P6 Disclosure of Findings ++ + + + P7 Conflict of Interest ++ 0 + 0 P8 Fiscal Responsibility ++ ++ 0 0 A1 Proaram Documentation ++ + + + A2 Context Analysis ++ + ++ + A3 Described Purposes and Procedures ++ ++ + + A4 Defensible Information Sources ++ + + ++ AS Valid Information ++ + + + A6 Reliable Information ++ + + + A7 Systematic Information ++ ++ + + AS Analysis of Quantitative Data ++ . ++ 0 + A9 Analysis of QualitatiVe Data ++ ++ + + A 1 o Justified Conclusions ++ + + + A 11 Impartial Reporting ++ ++ ++ ++ A 12 Meta-evaluation ++ 0 0 + 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensjve program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget. a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco. CA:. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include. at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated. a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation. and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required. then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation. the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularfy scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R A Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, induding a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 0. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research questlOn, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student perfonnance data should be included. {See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabinet) to stakeholders. {See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSOC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Mproaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry; Using Evaluation to Promote Stude!J! Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994}. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: 4 - - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Of STRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data:  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not beingsuccessful for the improvement of African-American achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board'.s agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 11. The Director of PRE wilt prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifJcations. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 5 --' NOV.18.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR D. Grade-level desaiptions of the teachers who were Involved In the assessment process (e.g., all fourth~grade math teachers. all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations 1o other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation.N Assessing Impact Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford. OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 2004 6 NOV.18.2005 1:22PM JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: Fax: Re: JOHN W WALKER, P.A. A.rtorney ar Lczy,; 1723 Broadway Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374~4187 FAX TRANS:MISSION COVER SHEET rt/n/oo - . MPI,t f~f / ~ 1i-ria a 11 -o, oo Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE l _ ,(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL   ''\u0026lt;(501) 374 .. 37S$\u0026gt;\" -- The information contained in tltis facsimile message is atmmey privileged and confidential information interui~d only for th.e usci of the individual or entity named above. ff the read.er of this message is nor the intended recipient, or me employee oi- ~ent responsible ro deliver it to the inten\u0026lt;1ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any dis3emimtion, disiribmion or copying of this communicirtion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and rerurn tbe original message to us at.the above address via the TJ.S. Postal Seivice. Thruuc you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1~ ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED NOY 2 8 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I have changed my mind on the Rule 11 ruling made orally at the close of the November 7, 2005 hearing -- it is set aside and held for naught. As was mentioned at the hearing, LRSD will not pay any part of Mr. Kaplan's attorney's fees or expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofNovember, 2005. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEC. 5. 2005 4 :18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO . 409 P.2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW~JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 P::.igP. 1 ,:if 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1R.ICT COURT .nA:s n::.KN Vl::STRl.CT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTIE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULAKSICOUNTYSPECIAL .~rwnnr nY\u0026lt;::'Tl)rr-r l:'T ,. r --------- .... ~'-\"\"_. , ...,.., ra..1.,1. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHER1NE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLJ.ThTTIFF IJ.t..t' .t..NLJANT~ INTER.VENO RS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO LRSD S RESPONSE TO THE COURT S ORDli'.\"A 01\" NQVJ,.1'-fflER \"!. 20~ Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, ieply to the LR.SD s response to the court s order as follows: 1. LRSD shall identify all members of the evaluation team and provide a written description for each of them of their respective roles and resp0Il3ibilities in the evaluation process. 2. LRSD shall identify the schools where each program being evaluated is being implemented. and it shall further set forth by school: (a) explain the current status of the program under evaluation; and (b) the number of students participating in each program by grade, race and gender. It shall also set forth budgetary information regarding each of the programs at each of the schools. DEC. 5.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.409 P.3 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 3. LRSD should be required to set forth a schc~e of dates for the steps that each evaluator and others will take to canplete the assi~ent of each evaluator. Specific, separate schedules are reeded for each expert because information provi~ by LRSD regarding Dr. Ross does not appear to be congruent. Compare paragraph 2 at page 1 (re final draft in midFebruary) with paragraph S(d) at pages 3-4 (Board approval of all four evaluations at Fehn1:ny 23, 2006 meeting). 4. The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and t.o the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated by any of the IRSD and expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of infonnation. 5. Joshua proposes that item S(d) should read: Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports discussed above, LR.SD tl:cugh. PP~ *ulll w.~t witrJ. the; OD?v1 , Jv:;huii, wU i.hc. experts to .~~i-,;,; and \"owld,;1 ik: wwm1;ni.:i of foshua and ODM r~gardmg thi. iha.ft lcpUl~. Joshua awi ODM shall aiso have tile right to 5u.l.11uiL tucw.er comments up until the time of Board action. jos.ilua Shall have the right to appear before the school board prior to the board action regarding the reports. lt is expected that the board members shall engage m open dialogue regarding any concerns that are voiced by Joshua or ODM at any meeting which the board holds regarding the subject. 6. After the time of final approval of the evaluatiom, Joshua shall have the right to comment to LRSD regarding the use being made of the evaluations. LRSD shall promptly respond to any such comments or inquiry. 2 DEC. S.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.409 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Respectfully submitted, W John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. i 723 Hroadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email address: inhnw11lkP.M1tty(n1ac!.cc\"' 22 Lvcust A ven.ue Lcxiugiun, MA 02421 iBl-862-1955 P. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Response has been electronically fifod with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC S)Stem which will send.notifi~tfon !(I such filing !C ill counsel of record, ls/John W. Walker 3 DEC. 5.2005 Date: To: FQ)C: Re: 4: 17PM JOHN W WALKER PA Tn1-lhT TJ\"7 U\"'-\"..\u0026amp;.....Lt ,,. Attorney at Law ] 723 'RrMdway T.itrl~ x,,.,.1i, J,,.1,,,..,.~,.~ 7-,-,11~ - ~ - - -----,  ...,..M..., I MVV T:lepl,onc (50lj J74-37J8 Fw; (50lj ji4-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET December 5, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 371-0100 --NO.409- P.1 . D A 1 . .ft. . Sender: John W. Walker YOU SHDrn,n RP.r'li'.rrn:. [ (fr:c!ud:ng CC\".,'~ .:h~ot}] PACE(S), INCLUDlNG T'.rilS COVER S.'f.!EET. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, ?LE.ASE CALL \"..;.(Svij 37-,.3758\u0026gt;:, The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomeyprivilegedand confidential infonnation intended wtly for the use of the imJMdllal or entity named above. If the reader of this message is l10t the intended r~~lp~ or we empioyee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified ihit 'iw.} ~tion, w.stn\"bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have ~i-.-::d :!ii, wwmunlcatiuii. iii error, piease immediate notify us by teiephone, and return the original message to ~ :.t :he =c: ~asi via .hu U .. S. Posual Sc,rvice. T'.nank you. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 PagRttE\\\\JED NO'J 2 8 100~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION Qff\\CEOf IDllG OESEGREGAl\\ON M0~\\10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS For its Response to \"Joshua Intervenors Reply to LRSD' s Response to the Court's Order of November 7, 2005,\" the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. 2. On August 20, 2001, this Court directed counsel for the ioshua Intervenors, for the second time, \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case.\" Order, August 20, 2001 (attached). 3. Counsel for Joshua has violated the Court's August 20, 2001 Order and Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, on Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2005, counsel for LRSD wrote counsel for Joshua to make the following request: \"I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District.\" Counsel for LRSD also addressed the question of Joshua's role as a monitor in this case: With respect to your representation of the Joshua Intervenors, I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD' s compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2. If you will identify Joshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you are representing a client, should be directed to me. November 18, 2005 letter from Heller to Walker (attached). 4. In compliance with the Court's November 7, 2005 bench ruling, the Joshua Intervenors filed today a Reply to LRSD' s pleading of November 17, 2005. In paragraph 4 of that Reply, Joshua proposes that the Court enter an order which contains the following language: The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and to the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 3 of 4 by any of the LRSD expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of information. 5. Without telling the Court what they are doing, and without providing the Court the relevant information set forth above, the Joshua Intervenors are asking the Court to overturn its August 20,2001 Order and the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Joshua seeks access to PRE staff members \"without limitation.\" Joshua requests that the \"presence of LRSD counsel\" not be required. The Court has already ruled on this issue, and Joshua should not be allowed to change that ruling, particularly without telling the Court what it is trying to do. 6. Many of the PRE staff are unavailable to help provide a further response to the pleading filed today by the Joshua Intervenors. LRSD expects that it will supplement this response upon their return after the holiday. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that any order issued by the Court concerning the completion of the evaluations required of LRSD not contain the language in paragraph 4 of the Reply filed by the Joshua Intervenors on November 23, 2005. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 l Ls{ Christopher Heller CERTIEI.CATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 23, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Cleik. of the Court using the CMJEC. system. which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us fil_ones@mws~w.com ~ones@ilj.com i9hnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Judge J. Thomas Ray Gene Jones U.S. District Courthouse Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ~/ Christopher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Case4:82\"-cv-=00666..-\\VRW JTR . ... Document 3982 Doetm ,ent a483 Filed 11/23/2005 Filed 0S/20t20Q1 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STA~DISTRICT COURT  ~~~SA8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG_ i O 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITI'LEROCKSCHOOLDISTRIC1,  p~ vs. PULASKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal., 'Defendants;        MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. et al.,  '   Intervenors, * . KATHERINE KNIGlIT, et al., Intervenoni.    ORDER  No. 4:82CV00866 SWW On August 17, 2001\u0026gt; the Cowt held a telephone conference in this matter toaddreS$ -several pending motions. For the. reasons stated at the telephone c:onference, the Court takes the following action on these motions: The Joshua Intervcnors' motion for pre1imimuy injunction [docket no. 3471] is hereby DENIED. Counsel fortbc-Joshua Intcrvenors aud Pulaski County Special School District have . .. . '. . indicated their intent to adibss., substance of the Josbualntcrvenors' related com:cted motion for relief from orders~ on April 27; 2000 and May9, 2001 by defendant Gary Smith  . . . '  [docket no. 3473] without_tbis Court's ~ce; therefore, the Court'directs the Joshua . . . Intcrvenors to inform the Cowt no later than October 17, 2001, whether it is necessary for the . . l Court to ruJe on tbia_motion or whed1c:r the moti~ should.be rcDl?ved from the Court's docket. Little Rock School bisuict's motion for protective order and.for' emergency hearing Court's considedion... (docket no. 3477] is bcrcl?YDF.NIED wrraour~ICE beaiuse itis not~ 11  !'for-th.e.--....._ ..._ , . EXHIBIT -.f ti: . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3483 Filed 08/20/2001 Page 2 of 4 .., Little Rock School District's motion for conteUlpt [docket no. 3480} is hereby DENIED WITHOUTPREIUDICE. To cls.rify its previous Order, the Court.directs counsel for Joshua Jnterveuors to go through counsel for die Little Rock School District when seeking infomiation.  from the district or district officials and pcrso~ that is pertinent to the ca.e. and to infon:n . .. counsel for~ Little RO\u0026lt;ik School District prior w oontacting district officials and personnel  about matters not currently before the Court. Con. cerning 11 Baker Recruitment Plan [docket no. 3456]; the Pulaski C.o unty Special ' J School District js directed to filo mrJ supplemental.information no later than Tuesday, August 21, 2001, and the Joshua Interveno.rs arc directed to respond 10 any supplement within five days from the date the supplcmcnt is filed. . -,J.._ _ . . IT IS SO ORDERED nns i/Jl_DAY OF AUOUST, 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRlct COURT iHIS OQCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COM~UANCE Wl1lf RULE 58 ~DIOB.ll{I) FRCP ON 2\u0026lt; -a ,. . ol ,..av_..JA__~.. ---- 2: Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 .W\u0026amp;UCltU.H.tlJ~W(lnf1,..) MICIU.\u0026amp;\u0026amp;.LMQOALP-.4 IYIOKM. 111aMM1.JL P.4. WALTDll. UILJU.r.A. JAMES A. MJTil1\". I . A.. DV1N A. 0l.UI. f ,A. Pkl.DU.la.\u0026amp;. UUllY.P..A. WIU.UMA. WADOSU..,._.,,A.. OaG\\l I. CAVIL JL. P.A. ICOT'J' J. UJK:A\u0026amp;UL P.A. J4 .... C, CXAU.  .. P.\u0026gt;.. IDUlT t. UACK. a., f ,A. TIIOMAII, LIOOlff, P.A. /. I.UUOWW.f..t. JOIUI MWIT WATIGII. P.A. I.U,U C. 1.UU. I\u0026amp;.. f.A f4U1,\u0026amp;u,ria[AJ,(1D,P,A. KAllYA.1.IORT, P.A. u..a.av w. auau. 1.1,,.. ,con x. ruca;u. r.A. 4. WYCICU1' )llUlr. JL. I.A. 0UY IJ.roN WUI, J.A.. MMU IDWAUll,U,all, I.A. IIICIC.OA\u0026amp;D- P.\u0026gt;.. J4MU M. 100-'0II, f.l.. TOIILU, /OIIU. I .A. IAMU W. AXTON. P,4. MYID D. WJUOIC. P.A. J. SKltKlm IUIHU. n\u0026amp;. P,-', IIHU't JI. GOU. P.A. OO\u0026gt;IA\u0026amp;.D a. MCOJII. P.A. MVRa II. OILU. I .A. WJWAW t'MO.._., U.ffU, P.A. CAM.A OUHJrillU IPAillCOUL f.4. JOUl'KI, IUUf, 11.. P.A.. JOWAJfNC. aw.u,.1.A. lUZ.UlfM.0.IIIIMU\u0026amp;\u0026amp;AY,J, . .\\. .L 000ff0111D.LA.'WION. P.A. CIWlto,t\u0026amp;ll Hllll:1. P.Jt- KTfl' I, 0DmlY1 P.A. 1.4\\aA NIMUY IMU'11. P.A. 1'11104 K JOKNIOlt. P,A.. M\u0026gt;NA1 I, SHARL P.A. U.WU II, IMIT\u0026gt;L I .A. WU.LU.M ... GWPIN n\u0026amp;. P.A. CIJ'INl\u0026amp;O w. rt..UNanT. f . A. VIA Fax Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD Dear John: FRIDAY El.DREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A UMITliD I.IAIUTY PARTIIERSHIP www.fridayflrm.ec1n1 o4GO WEIT CAPITOL AVlNUI, :SUITE~ LITTLEROCIC, AIUCAHSA.s 722Cl1-M22 TELEl'NONli .at-371-2011 n.X501376-2U7 1421-TH 'UTIIALL DIIIV\u0026amp;, IUJTI 1U P4Ylffll/1WI, 4,._ 1270Mlt1 nu,HONI \u0026lt;IJ'I-M .. i011 ,,x '1Mtf~ltU November 18, 2005 'D,UIW.1..UUllfOTON.1,i,. I. IG\u0026lt;=XAIL J'JCIIJIXI. , ,,,_ M-UYIII L OIU.IIIU I. COLIW.UI WUTUOO\u0026amp;. /Lo P.\u0026gt;.. Jol.lJIOlll. C0alnrllL,1.A. iu.z.NM. OWIJll, P-A. IAIIINl, JmlDaDl,P.4. JWIICJI\u0026amp; TlllftLI.P.A. JOIIPH   MC'XAY. P..A, AW.umu.A, IPLUL P.\u0026gt;.. JAY f , fAYloOI, P,\u0026gt;.. .MAffnl ... lilTIII IJ:r All W, DUU ,OIIPIIG, IIICIIClU aona T, lMlT\u0026gt;I ).YAHA.~MA\u0026gt;l 1IIIOTIIY C. IZE1L T, MICll\u0026amp;Ull .. 101 XAUII L HAUU.7 l.u.AJI M. CDTTOH UJaTUI' $. IOWl,..,UIDS Au.Jlf G. a\u0026amp;Yil l.Ol01\u0026amp;Y WIT~ t.0UMCa JCf.\\YYAMK.GIIDflll JCJIDI J. llllll\u0026amp;ICII .uwm.+.CAPPI- IU\\IIN L IDOU 1.W4'TNIY11UMII.JI. -1111,nwo-.. IWI-Yll,loUIPl11-.. Wl.\u0026amp;1T U/411 C. IMffll ... -...wona, IITWILMAJ'4U DaC L CUUIJJII UIUGO'laa L OOX IATftaYN 4. laUl4mC1t J. ADAM'nU-1 \u0026amp;.WMl,.u,JJ.Y .. - WlWMIII.IClnOtl.P.I.. WIW'AM~n\u0026amp;\u0026amp;Y WIWAM L PATTON, lL ._T, U,UII.I.J.LP.~ CMIUttofN\u0026amp; MIU.la Ll?Tl.l ROC~ T\u0026amp;LH1-a11MI P.Altlt1- .. ,..,.,_.,, It has been reported to me that you have been communicating directly with Little Rocle School District Administrators during the course of your representation of various clients, including the Joshua Intervenors. You lmow that the Little Rock School District is represented by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Your direct commllDication with our clients violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District With respect to yolU' representation of the Joshua Jntervcnors. I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2 If you will identify 1 oshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfil the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you arc representing a client, should be directed to me. CJH/bk Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Mr. John Walker November 18, 2005 Page2 cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJ amette Olivine Roberts IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR1CT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFACEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3938). A hearing was held on November 7, 2005 to discuss, among other things, the merits of the motion. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the hearing, the motion is GRANTED. The following is directed: 1. LRSD has until 5 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2006, to file and serve the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART/THRIVE, Year-Round Education, and Reading Recovery. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, Joshua will have fourteen (14) days to submit written comments to LRSD and PRE. Simultaneous copies must be sent to ODM and the Court. Before any Board action, Joshua will also have the opportunity to appear before the LRSD School Board to address their concerns, objections, or support regarding the evaluations. Joshua should promptly notify the LRSD school board if they intend to take - advantage of this opportunity. 3. lfLRSD learns that it will not receive a preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the date set forth above, it will immediately inform the Court and the parties. 4. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. After the completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations and serve them on ODM and Joshua. 5. IfLRSD learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reason, LR.SD must promptly inform the Court and the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKAJ\",SAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 151-0 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones  425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEQREQATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC'EIVED DEC l_-:- 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 sa'se'8'\"6'ii\".'tfi '\"1a/,j~iW?M iIa61\u0026amp;aFoaot\u0026gt;'Erri3:1r;?200 ~tat~fFo~n~d \"~ :rnr~$s700WJ~t~:12e=--=:.........-.=--==. ....... B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1779","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order and witness list, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order and witness list, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1779"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, order to show cause; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness list; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence; District Court, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONl.:rORING LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: QuestionNo.1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Court's 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 th 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 benc;hmark 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 Joshua's counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSD' s filing of such a motion. 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 LRSD's 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 Court's 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 Court's 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. 2 Case 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 \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller 3 Case 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, I 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 sjones@mwsew.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@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 Isl Christopher Heller Case 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 RECEIVED Facsimile (501) 604-5149 October 5, 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel: OCT 6 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONtTORINli 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 furthwith. 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, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM. 10/05/2005 11 : 15 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS C-' S9f.- RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-6140 Facalmile (501) 604-51A9 October 5, 20~ Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 F/4t 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, Isl Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray; other lawyers of record, ODM. 10/05/2005 11:15 5016045149 WILSON FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TO: Chris Heller SamJone5 Steve Jones John Walker Robert Prc!lsman Mark Hagemeier ODM Mark Burnette DATE: /0 - ) ,., 0S Telephone: 501-6045140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 688-8807 375.1027 374-4187 781862-1955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are 7- pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this :facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R Wil U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morg1w. LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 PAGE 01/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RECEIVED OCT 11 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONtTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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. 1 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, 2004.2 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. 3 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. 2Doc. No. 3875. 3Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). school 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 filed. 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 LRSD's Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSD's 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 DeJarnette;  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 2 by 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. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT TIJDGE 3 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 a rman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 - rt Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD' S WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. 2. Gerie Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 ,Little Rock, AR 72201 - Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30th \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. 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-38152-3340 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONtTORING Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30th \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller , I Case 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, I 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.hae:emeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@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 3 Isl Christopher Heller UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'ORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is LRSD's 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. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3956 Filed 10/28/2005 . Page 1 of 1 ,AO 458 /Rey I Q/95} Appearance UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION NOTICE OF APPEARANCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l ET AL. To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Case No: 4:82CV00866WRW RECEIVED NOV -1 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONl-TORING Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, Christopher Heller, and Little Rock School District for the limited purpose of representing them in connection with the Order to Show Cause matter pending in this Court. Date I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court. Philip E. Kaplan Print Name 68026 . Bar Number 415 Main St. Address Little Rock City S0I-372-0400 Phone Number pkaplan@kbmlaw.net E-Mail AR 72201 Stale Zip Code e. KAPLAN, BREWER, MAXEY \u0026amp; HARALSON, P.A. PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOANN C. MAXEY REGINA HARALSON Of counsel: SILAS H. BREWER, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2005 TO: Manual notice recipients: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 101 O West Third Street Post Office Box 151 O Little Rock, AR 72203-151 0 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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 METRO CENTRE MALL 415 MAIN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-0400 FAX (501) 376-3612 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FROM: RE: ENCLOSURE: Philip E. Kaplan Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. Notice of Appearance Page 1 of 2 Moler, Nina From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1 :42 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Appearance\" ***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 received from Kaplan, Philip E. entered on 10/28/2005 at 1:41 PM CDT and filed on 10/28/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3956 Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Philip E. Kaplan on behalf of Little Rock School District (Kaplan, Philip) 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=l0/28/2005] [FileNumber=509898-0 ] [412b34e7f6ff637f536357f8eae2491515cd9304e18c7fd6d0130a96c7cde7688dd bcf73 lf d6b5144c9dl 15cc34 77917 cf5695350684442050dc5ef702879e6a]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendley 1@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M: Samuel Jones , ill sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 10/31/2005 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of 2 Joh! n 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 \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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 Thompso! n \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 10/31/2005. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education October 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOKI-TORlNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. J:;_J;fk Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer \\  - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 WRW V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2005. Resf fully Subu~tted, 5.11~;/'h. Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL  In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 ;,i;:~\"f~ :~~I'\u0026lt;! ;;{ij;f(;, t~ ~!!~f,i_i, i.1;,.,11.i,: ,-J:ff -;ft ~~~f\\ ~~~~!,', :,:~ ,ii~tv Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 ---AAIM-#Mii49 j . - i \u0026amp; ; It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff _ attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2005 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 Fii:CEIVED NOV -1 2005  OFFICEOF ~ ESEGREGATION MONR'ORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR EXCUSED ABSENCE The PCSSD for its motion, states: ONIHO!lNOW NOllV93H93S30 ~o 331!0 ~OOZ 1- AON 03J\\1303H PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS 1. Your undersigned counsel has reviewed the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, respecting witness lists and a summary of testimony. 2. The PCSSD does not intend to offer any witnesses or exhibits. 3. Indeed, unless the Court perceives that the presence of undersigned counsel would actually contribute to resolution of the issues to be addressed on November 7, 2005, then counsel for the PCSSD perceives no pressing reason to attend the hearing and requests permission to be excused. 4. The PCSSD notes that a telephone hearing may occur on Thursday, November 3, 2005. Perhaps this motion could be addressed at that time. WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel provisionally requests that his attendance be  excused at the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2005, and for all proper relief. I Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 I / By__:~:::::::.__2~~~.,L.::.-===/-----i - .com or P Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 31, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendley l@alltel.net  Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov belecia. bledsoe@arkansasag.gov  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net;tmiller@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com kate.jones@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net nmoler@kbmlaw.net  Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net scstreett@yahoo.com  John W. Walker j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com lorap 72297@aol .com ;j springer@gabrielmail.com 2. I certify that on October 31, 2005, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 1 0 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 3 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I I Attom for Pulas  ounty Special School District 1 HELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GA TES \u0026amp;  WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 4. ~,n Overton From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:45 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Request\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of eacl) document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing T--ollowing transaction was received from Jones, M. entered on 10/31/2005 at 4:44 PM CST and filed on 10/31 /2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3961 Docket Text: REQUEST by Pulaski County Special School District for Motion for Excused Absence. (Jones, M.) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: 10/31/2005 Document description:Main Document oenal filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l0/31/2005] [FileNumber=511556-0 ] [27a796d577la86afa01 l b9claf372225fa606eee72df386cfe2017bb789360lf32c 5905b36dd505a608052f4ac23ddlb78de76dbb28lee7f264acb41754b7c28]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia. b ledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher l Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net rvwamuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Joh! n 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 \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 *le Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin 10/31/2005 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 9-udson Street SuTe 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 OJiw.ce of Desegregation Monitor ca Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompso! n \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 1013:11zoos UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV -1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONtlORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I have received copies of the proposed witnesses of the parties. It appears that there may be an overloading of the wagon with witnesses in view of the narrow scope of the show cause hearing scheduled for one week from today, Monday, November 7, 2005. In view of this possibility, each party is directed to give a brief summary of the expected testimony of each witness (brief but sufficient to let me know what the witness is going to testify about), and an estimated time for direct examination of each of these witnesses. These lists and summaries must be sent to me by fax by noon, this Thursday, November 3, 2005. Fax copies must be sent to opposing counsel and the original is to be filed with the Clerk. We may have a telephone conference this Thursday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. regarding the witness lists, so please mark your calender to be available. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIME-Version:1 . 0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;5ll039@ared .uscourts . gov\u0026gt; A ce: W ubject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions . ***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 10/31/2005 at 1:53 PM CST and filed on 10/31/2005 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.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3958 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?3958,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005226 Docket Text: ORDER re [3950] Witness List filed by Little Rock School District , [3 955] Witness List filed by Lorene Joshua, (3948] Order to Show Cause , [3952] Witness List filed by Lorene Joshua. Each party is directed to fax to the Court lists and summaries of the expected testimony of each witness by noon, 11/3/05 and file the original with the Court. A telephone conference may be held 11/3/05@ 2:00 . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/31/05. (dac, ) A e following document(s) are associated with this transaction: ~cument description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l0/31/2005 ] [FileNumber=511038-0] [a625af27622bca56c03133f662d7b218073ba5233ed815d89d996539dl96233fd8be6913af3657d 3b438d0fc6b9789cdfl6a9d5174dfc8f5bde806ae3aa41084]] 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, belecia.bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.,com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; - pringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon , PLLC ~ . ' .. 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 A orman J. Chachkin W AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 . ort 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 Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1786","title":"Court filings regarding motion to remove counsel from certificate of service listing, motion for approval of temporary portable buildings, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update, and motion to extend time to file.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-07/2005-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Jacksonville High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joe T. Robinson Middle School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pine Forest Elementary School (Maumelle, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to remove counsel from certificate of service listing, motion for approval of temporary portable buildings, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update, and motion to extend time to file."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1786"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["95 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to remove counsel from certificate of service listing; District Court, motion for approval of temporary portable buildings; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO REMOVE COUNSEL FROM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LISTING RECEIVED JUL -8 2005 OFFICEDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendants State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger, for their Motion request that the Clerk remove the following attorneys from the certificate of service list based upon the following: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen and Assistant Attorney General Colette D. Honorable are no longer assigned to this case. 2. Attorneys Sammye L. Taylor and Tim C. Humphries are no longer employed with the Office of the Attorney General. WHEREFORE, Defendants State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education request that Dennis R. Hansen, Colette Dodson Honorable, Sammye L. Taylor, and Tim C. Humphries, be removed from the certificate of service listing in this case for judicial economy. Defendants request that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General I Timothy G. Gauger, Bar Number 95019 Attorneys for Defendants State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: Tim.Gauger@arkansasag.gov CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 7, 2005, I presented the foregoing to the Clerk of Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com mbumette@mbbwi.com scurry@aristotle.net fedley l@alltel.net mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov hell er@fec.net, brendak@fee.net sjones@mwsgw.com., aoverton@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj .com, padams@jlj.com laveyandburnett@laveyandbumett.com, jsmith@laveyandbumett.com rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com btrice@hfc-law.com, ajegley@hfc-law.com j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap 72297@aol.com, j springer@gabrielmail.com 2 I hereby certify that on July 7, 2005, I mailed the document by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street P.O. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Franklin A. Davis 625 Northwind Circle Conway, AR 72032-3477 Nelwyn L. Davis Attorney at Law 5 Bridle Court Little Rock, AR 72227 P.A. Hollingsworth Hollingsworth Law Firm, P.A. Main Place Building 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201-3801 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Robert C. Lowery Lowry Law Firm 9000 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72205 3 - Phillip K. Lyon Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. TCBYTower 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Jerry L. Malone Office of Chief Financial Officer 4023 Emerald Lane Suite A Bowie,MD 20716 Aubrey McCutcheon Attorney at Law Fisher Building Suite 2606 Detroit, MI 48202 Joseph Steven Mowery Stephens, Inc. 111 Center Street, Suite 2300 P.O. Box 3507 Little Rock, AR 72203-3507 Officer of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Walter A. Paulson, II Entergy Services, Inc. 639 Loyola Avenue Post Office Box 61000 New Orleans, LA 70161-1000 Samuel A. Perroni Perroni, James \u0026amp; House, P.A. 801 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2103 4 David Carl Schoen Arkansas Municipal League P.O. Box 38 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0038 Otis H. Storey, III Entergy Services, Inc., 425 West Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P.O. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 William P. Thomson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Kenneth G. Torrence 1 721 Abigail Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Elizabeth Boyter Turner Attorney at Law 21500 Reynard Lane Little Rock, AR 72210 Larry D. Vaught Arkansas Court of Appeals Justice Building 625 Marshall Little Rock, AR 72201 Horace A. Walker Attorney at Law 518 Pyramid Place Second \u0026amp; Center Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Michael K. Wilson Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 By: Timothy G. Gauger, ~ey General Bar Number 95019 Attorneys for Defendants State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-2007 E-mail: Timothy.Gauger@arkansasag.gov 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. . MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY PORT ABLE BUILDINGS PCSSD for its motion states: 1 RECEIVED JUL 2 6 2005 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I. Attached as Exhibit A is a memorandum from the Assistant Superintendent for Leaming Services explaining and justifying the need for one portable at Robinson Middle School, one portable at Robinson High School and two portables at Jacksonville High School. . By way of explanation, the \"old gym\" at Robinson is being reclaimed by its actual owner having i been on loan to the District for decades. 2. , Exhibit A also explains the need on a temporary basis for one portable at Baker Elementary School and one portable Pine Forest Elementary School. l ' 3.  For the reasons set forth in Exhibit A, the PCS SD prays for an order of this Court approving the use of portable buildings for the uses and durations explained therein. 1 It should be noted that nothing in Plan 2000 or any operative orders of this Court address the issue of portable buildings one way or the other. As a general proposition, the PCSSD eschews the use of portables except for non classroom settings of when their use is unavoidable. Desegregation plans previous to Plan 2000 placed considerable restrictions upon the use of portable buildings but that language is no longer operative. However, the PCS SD has historically sought permission of the Court for the use of portable buildings, even on a temporary basis. Hence this motion. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I hereby certify that on July 25, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendley1@alltel.net  Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark. hagemeier@ag .state .ar. us  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net;tmiller@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones, Ill sjones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com barbie.mcadams@jlj.com;kate.jones@jlj .com  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com lo rap 72297@aol.com ;jspringer@gabrielmail.com l certify that on July 25, 2005, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice - of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: 2 Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box  1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suitel895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Atto for Pulaski nty Special School District ITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 3 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PCSSD Cabinet Marvin H. Jeter, ill, Assistant Superintendent for Le2rning Se.-vices 15 July 05 Rationale for requesting portable buildings Robinson Muldle School -1 Portable As we will be losing the old gym at Robinson, there is a need to have a portable for students to be used as changing rooms until the new gym is completed and ready for usage in August 2006. Robinson High School -1 Portable The enrollment during the 2004-2005 school year was 674, and the projected enrollment at Robinson is 690 students which is over-enrolled for the building capacity. Therefore, we need pennission to continue the usage of the portable that is located there until such tim.e as additional classrooms can be built. Jacksonville High School - 2 Portables Several weeks ago, I was asked to prepare this recommendation regarding the placement of portables at JackSOnville High School, so I have copied it to this document. I do have sonic concerns based upon the conversations over the transition of ninth grade to the high school campus. In the town meetings and in related conversations, the community expressed their strong desire to keep the ninth grade as separate as possible for safety, focus, and support. After reviewing and discussing some of the recent data on high school reform, Dr. Henderson and I agreed that this would be best. He instructed us to figure it out. When we considered the estimate of 300 ninth .grade studentsrwe projected.thata:ll:)inimum of eight classrooms would be needed according.to the follovving arrangement: 2 rooms for Ninth Grade Language Arts - English I 2 rooms for Ninth Grade Mathematics - Algebra I or Intermediate Algebra A 2 rooms for Ninth Grade Social Studies - 2 rooms for Ninth Grade Strategies for Success The advanced classes, science classes, and electives could be taught in the main building. For this reason, Mr. Clark recommended that we move art to the print shop and establish the K Building as the Ninth Grade Center. Now that we are planning on using the print shop for this pUipose and that building can provide at most four classrooms, Mr. Warren's suggestion to place two portables is the only way to provide the eight classrooms. This would fulfill our district commitment to the Jacksonville community to offer a more separate and protected environment for the ninth grade students. There is a great deal ofresearch and support .from USDE supporting concepts of\"Ninth Grade Academies\" and such designs to offer support as students transition from middle school and acclimate to the high school St-\"tting. Should we decide to provide this design, I recommend that we collect data regarding academic performance and attendance/retention to consider this for our other high school environments. EXHIBIT I Baker Elementary School -1 Portable PCSSD has begun plans for a new Chenal Elementary School which will open in August 2007. The 2004-2005 Baker enrollment was 362. Projected enrollment for 2005-2006 is 380 with 15 on a waiting list. With students on a waiting list to enroll at Baker Elementary, one portable will allow the school to retain as many of these students as possible within the public education system until such time as the new facility opens and allows 800 additional seats in this feeder. Pine Forest Elementary School - 1 Portable It is the strong opinion of the PCS SD Board Representative from the Mawnelle/Oak Grove zone that there is going to be a need for this pqrtable based upon the expected increase in enrollment due to additional neighborhoods in this attendance zone. Therefore, we are requesting permission to delay moving the portable until after the 8th day count so that we have an accurate number of students enrolled.  f1~~ Arkansas ~ = DEPARTMENT OF f:DUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UT11.E IC\u0026gt;a. A1XANSAS 72201-1071  (SC)I) 112-447S  lallp://arkalu.atate.ar.u Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education July 29, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED AUG - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORlNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. s)~~ Q ~ -4dsm~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ST ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pinc Buff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle *Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville *Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock *Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opponunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2005. Respectfully Submitted, , General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 29, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use.the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2005 aasea:,91) .tn~. information availabl~,,~t:.,J.!,JD~{~Q;:~OQ~.Jh~.A,01; cal~!.l.!a.t~.d ~h~_$tate Coia ' dati . ' J. r;:  d'n t : c:-v_, ... Fl . __ Jm\u0026amp;1Y.ll.~ 9 .t P.1. b t !JJn,Aa /.o. ~'1!!,111's.,i.iiw-LeQ =Kto\"~Pc,~ -JJ'o . ._d_i_c,'.a_c fJ u .s.+! l!m, ,e_J 'l.t. s.,'- B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED AUG 11 2005 OFFJCDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Temporary Portable Buildings (Doc. No. 3931 ). No party has objected, and the time for doing so has passed. For good cause shown and because no party has objected, PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Temporary Portable Buildings is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE RECEIVED SEP - 6 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated September 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the fourth 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 Court's 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 Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Cow:t. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: ~ ~Jf-. lo r Christopher Heller D 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 31st day of August, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge t Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr; Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr; Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERL Y UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2005 QfflCEOf IJESEBREGATION IIOE-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. , INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS . Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED SEP - 6 2DD5 OFFICE OF DESEOREOATION MON!TORJHQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2005. Respectfully Submitted, j 04h smit~92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 -I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 31, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr;M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 s'tttt Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW RECEIVED SEP - 6 2005 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL DESEOREOATION MONl10RINO INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2005 Based on the information available at June 30, 2005, the ADE calculated. the State Foundation Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending: Date lastday,,of' each month', August- Jun\u0026amp;. RECEIVED OCT 3 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DESEGREG=raHITORlHG EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION 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 Y 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 ofuseful program evaluations 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 fromDr. 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, J an~ary 16, 2006. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29, 2005, I 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 sjones/@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and I hereby certify that on September 29, 2005, I mailed the document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF 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 /s/ Christopher Heller 3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA BERKELEY  DAVIS  IRVINE  LOS ANCEL ES  RIVERSIDE  SAN DIECO  SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; 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 September 23, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJarnette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear- Dr. DeJarnette: Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901 .678.231 o Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax: 901 .678.4257 www.memphis.edu/crep 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 Univer~ty UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 3 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONf-TORJNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Little Rock School District's 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. 2004: Before writing anything else I feel compelled to quote my complete order of July 26, 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.\"1 LRSD's 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 Joshua's lawyers before the deadline passes. - Is it possible that both lawyers ofrecord 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 lrnown that they were not going to comply with the Court's 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 Court's directives with studied neglect? 'Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 2 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? 5. 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 LRSD's Motion to Extend Time will be set forthwith. The exact nature of that hearing will be determined after I receive LRSD's 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. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 -~~~ Arkansas ~~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ---==---~ HTATCAPITOLMAU.  IJTll.El0CX,;AIJCANSAS 72201-1071  (501)612-4475  bltp://arkcdiutate.ar.aa Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner or Education September 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 I Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III 9NfHOl1NOW N0l!V93H93S3O ~o 331JO gooz t: 1:m C3Al303H Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, r , \\JtLIV\\ ~Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: MarkHagemeier RECE-IVE-D OCT 3 2005\" OFFICcOFDESEGREGATION MONlTORING~ STATE.BOARD OffEDUCATION: Chair-Dr: JcaruwWestmoreland: Arkadelphia, Vicc-ChaiL-Dianc:Tatum,.PintBuff. Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro. Shelby Hillmair,,CarlisleCalvinKing; Marianna Randy,Eawson;.Bcntonvill~ *Mary Jane-Rebick, Little:Roclc *Naccaman: Williams, Johnson An Equal Opponunity Em lo er UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,otf ,3 :z1aus ~ - ,.,;)i;,r , rJfFF!ffl:(ffl: 11E~~HiAiTIO;{,'Afu!ffm?lflG PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2005. Respectfully Submitted, o C ~o-:lt,~ Scott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 ' . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1784","title":"Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice, response to court letter by Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Education--Finance","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice, response to court letter by Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1784"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice; District Court, response to Court letter dated May 23, 2005, by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget; District Court, Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) sur-reply regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD REPLY TO NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The PCSSD for its reply, states: The NLRSD Has Been Declared Unitary As to  Student Assignment And Racial Balance RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The critical distinction between the status of the NLRSD and the PCS SD is this: The NLRSD was declared unitary as to student racial balance and student assignments years ago; the PCSSD does not enjoy this adjudication and remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance. Thus, the interpretation of 1.he School Choice Act which promotes the desegregation efforts of the PCS SD must prevail over any other plausible interpretations, particularly since the NLRSD is no longer subject to Court supervision, monitoring or plan compliance on these issues. The Financial Circumstances Of The Two Districts Should Be Taktn Into Account The PCSSD was recently designated by the State as a school district in \"fiscal distress\". - Please see Exhibits A and B. The NLRSD does not labor under this designation either. It is undisputed that for each child the PCSSD loses, its State aid is reduced at least $5,400 pursuant to Act 59 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003. The PCS SD is consistently losing enrollment annually as documented by the ODM. However, no school district disputes the proposition that the infrastructure of a school district cannot be immediately or efficiently shrunk or reduced in the face of a declining enrollment. Thus, not only does the PCSSD lose at least $5,400 per student, but its proportionate cost of educating its remaining population of school children goes up. Since the PCSSD is obligated to formulate a plan to extricate itself from fiscal distress, any interpretation of the School Choice Act which exacerbates this financial status is at least suspect. If the PCS SD is unable to escape fiscal distress status, then State law authorizes the State to dismiss the superintendent or the Board, to consolidate the district with one or more other districts or to otherwise eviscerate it. Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908-1910. Such an outcome is inconsistent with this Court' s previous rulings in the Jacksonville detachment matter, which rulings were unanimously affirmed on appeal. Accordingly, an interpretation of the School Choice Act which threatens the very existence of the PCS SD should not be tolerated by this Court especially so long as the PCS SD has yet to attain unitary status. The Implications For Future M-to-M Transfers The rules for M-to-M transfer can only operate so long as at least one of the districts in Pulaski County remains majority white. If and when the PCS SD becomes majority black, the current M-to-M rules cannot continue to operate and the State would then undoubtedly take the position that it has no further obligation to fund M-to-M transfers. However, the current application of the School Choice Act promotes and hastens the PCS SD evolution into a majority black district. While the State might eagerly anticipate attainment of that status, it should not be artificially propelled and State law should not be permitted to operate to promote this eventuality 2 therefore risking an end to millions of dollars of special desegregation funding which actually benefits all three districts. The State Agrees that The School Choice Act Must Yield If It Conflicts With A Federal Court Order Upon information and belief, the PCSSD believes that the State has previously acknowledged that the School Choice Act must yield if it conflicts with the M-to-M stipulation. Conclusion For all of the reasons previously stated, the current operation of the School Choice Act should be suspended as to the schools specified in the initial motion and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 By----  M. S ecial 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 31, 2005 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 MAY-O6-05 FRI 12: 11 PM FAX NO. P. 02 {!,,t:.: a~  0;ii.;=-,.~ Arl(ansas 1t~ -- ~  ), ------ -------- OOM O Al:f- -- ~  )f) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ~ =;_ 'i~ 4 STATE CAPITOi, MAil. , I.Il1LE ROCK. A~ 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  lillp-.//m'kedu.s1,tur.11S Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Educ:adon April 11, 2005 Pulaski County School .District Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 RECEIVED APR 132.S- ~ J.,,o.6-1\"-u.,tt... ~~t~ f.8. ~ i\"~ ~~- Dear Dr. Henderson: ~ ,.J ~ )c /{)~ -t J~OS' I On April 11, 2005, the State Board of Education classified the Pulaski County Scho District os bolng In fiscal Distress. In ~ocordance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1908, \"Those school districts Identified by the Department of Education as being In fiscal distress shall file with the department within ten (10) days after the final classification by the State Board of Education a written fiscal distre\u0026amp;s Improvement plan to address any area in which the school district is experiencing fiscal distress as identified by the department.\" The fiscal distress plan is due no later than 4:30 PM, April 21, 2005. Fllrthermore, this Code requires that the plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:  Specific corrective action steps for each indicator stated below  A timeline for Implementing each corrective action step  Additional action steps the district proposes to take  A timeline for Implementing each additional action step For additional information, please refer to the Arkansas Department of Education Rules ldmntifying and Governing the Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program (Ruic), Section 7, which describes the Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan. In the Fiscal Distress Identification letter, dated March 3, 2005, the Department identified the following indicators of Fiscal Distress for the Pulaski County School District:  The District is projected to have a negative legal balance of $(11, 724,671) in the 2006 fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Atk. Code Ann.  6-20-1906, \"Any district classified as in fiscal distress shall be required to publish at least one (1) time for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district the school district's classification as a school district in fiscal distress and the reasons why the school district was classified as being In STATE DOA RD OF EDUCATION: Ch1lr - JoNcll Caldwell, Little RcK:k  Vice Chair JcanDI Watmo.-dand, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonuboro  Shelby HlllmH, Carlisle  Clvln )Cjng, Marian  Jbudy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rl'blck, Lfttlt Rock  Diane Tatam, Pine Bluff  Naccaman WIiiiams, Jobi\"------- A11 tq111f Oppori111dty l:111plo1er EXHIBIT I MAY-06-05 FR I 12: 12 PM FAX NO, P. 03 fiscal distress.~ Section 5.02.1 of the Rule states \"The district shall publish this announcement within 30 calendar days of the final classification by the State Board.\" Accordingly, the Pulaski  County School District shall publish this announcement by May 11, 2005. The school district should send to the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department proof of publication in the~ form of an Affidavit of Publlcatlon by the publisher.  Please note, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6--20-1907, \"your district is unable to Incur any debt without the prior written approval of the Department of Education.\" Information governing this Is available from the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908, \"A school district in fiscal distress may only petition the state board for removal from fiscal distress status after the department has certified in writing that the school district has corrected all criteria for being classified as In fiscal distress and has complied with all department recommendations and requirements for removal from fiscnl distress.\" If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Julie Kreth, Coordinator of Financial Accountability, al 601-682w5128. Sincerely, Patricia Martin, Assistant Director Public School Finance PJM/ac l'IAY-06-O5 FRI 12: 12 PH FAX NO. ORDER of CLASSJFJCATION of FISCAL DISTRESS WHEREAS, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann, \"6-20-1904, the Arkansas Department of Eclucatlon (ADE) has Identified the Pulaski County School District as a school district in fiscal distress, and has notified the school district of the identification and the criteria indicated by the ADE as the basis for the Identification, and WHEREAS, the Pulaski County School District has failed to file a written request for appeal of the identification to the State Board of Education (SBE) with the Director of the ADE within the time period set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1905, and WHEREAS, the Board, at Its regularly scheduled meeting of April 11, 2005, has dctem1ined that the Pulaski County School District, having been previously identified as a school district in fiscal distress, shall be and is classified as a school district In fiscal distress, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1906, and shall be required to meet the requirements of a school district classified as being In fiscal distress as set forth in the \"Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program\", Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1901 et seq., as modified, where applicable, by Act 60 of the 2003 Second Extraordinary Session of the 84th General Assembly. ORDERED AND SIGNED this 11th day of April, 2005 at Little Rock, Pulaski County,. Ark,msas. JoNell 9i/1,, {Jitd,wj Chair Arkansas State Board of Education P. 04 -o,--\u0026gt;Nh~o\u0026gt; ----------- ..  -~oo------- ... 1,#o--W- ..,----.,~\"- h It     .. \"' ST A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNeJI Caldwell, Little Rock , Vice Chair - Jea111n1 WKtmorcland, Arbdtlphla Mcmbcr11: Sherry Burrow,Jonesboro  Shelby :HIDman., Culble  Calvin Kin\u0026amp;, MariJPU  Jbndy Lawson, Jle11tonvllle MaryJane Rebick. UUle Rock  Dint T1tvm, l'lnc Bluff  Naccaman Wlllluns, Jobnaen AD Equal Opporlllnll,)' E111ployer MAY-06-05 FRI 12:13 PM FAX NO. Pulaski County Special School District Proposed Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education approved the recommendation of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to officially designate Pulaski County Special School District as a school district in fiscal distress for the 2005-2006 school year. As mandated by ADE regulations, the District respectfully submits the following pl'1n outlining its intent to correct the fiscal issue as identified by the ADE. The plan Includes: 1. Statement of the financial problem that caused the District to be placed In fiscal distress   2. Actions to be taken during 2005-2006 to correct this problem (with attachment) 3. Timeline of events statement of the Problem Based on the ADE's calculation (letter dated Marcil 3, 2005) the District's legal operational fund balance is projected to be a deficit of $5,082.,921 on June 30, 2006. Corrective Action Taken 1. On April 20, 2005 the school board made reductions to Its 2.005-2006 operational budget In the amount of $11,7041249 which will  result in containing expenditures to within current projected revenue and restoring a portion of the fund balance. Attached Is a list of those reductions. Toe school board will amend ltS policies to ensure these budget reductions are implemented. 2. The administration has approached the Pulaski Association of Oassroom Teachers (PACT) seeking certain concessions within the negotiated agreement which will assist in controlling costs and add to the fund balance. - These are reflected in the attachment. P. 06  EXHIBIT I /3 ----------- - --======~- MAY-06-05 FRI 12: 13 PM FAX NO. ..  Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 Page 2 3. The school board has directed the District budget committee to convene within two weeks to consider further budget reductions. 4. The district currently mee~ the 9% Maintenance funding requirement of Act 1426 of 2005 and will continue to budget for this requirement. s. The school board will adopt a policy that requires adding at least $2 million per year to the fund balance until the District's legal fund balance ls a minimum of 10% of prior year expenditures. 6. The school board will review the salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. Timelin,e The following timellne will be utilized during the 2005-2006 school year: April 20, 2005 May 10, 2005 June 14, 2005 June 30, 2005 August 16, 2005 September 15, 2005 January 2006 Attachment School board takes action on the fiscal distress Improvement plan and recommended budget reductions. School board will review salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. School board will adopt a policy for restoring the fund balance. Request for modification of contract language with PACT will be resolved. School board approves budget. 2005-2006 budget due to ADE, School board review of the District's financial status and approval of prior year audit. P. 07 MAY-06-05 FRI 12: I 3 PH FAX NO. P. 08 i ' Prioritized Budget Reductions 2005-2006 Items for Reduction ---   ... . . r   -  --   ----   Amount 1 . Paid off ear!Y retirement Incentive . --- ___ ,___ __ $1 ,000,qoo:OO 2 CloseSiam _____ $19,oqg.oo 3 Harris reverts to r~ular sch95?LY~r _______ ,,___ $116,850:.0Q 4 Reduce Sl.!EPOrt staff sick leave incentive by 50% ----1---- $52,000.00 5 Eliminiate tuition reimbursement __,, ---___ -~9:350.00 6 _ Eliminate open _house_sti~nds ------- --.,_ .. -- $661990.00 -..? _ Eliminate all pajclholida~ for all em~lo~es -~-- $4,058,859.00 B gllminat~.!:Jiring_ in~enti~es _ -- $65;6bo.oo 9 .R.~_ct1:1q~ .1?_r,cmtb_~on!racts !R..?.11 q~.YL._ _. .. $60,000.00 10 . Food Service reorganization (Warehou\u0026amp;____ ___  __ $97,718.00 .. 1t_ ... f0ai!lt~nar~e Dee~~rt!}lent (f,reeze ~J~oslt~ons} _ _ .. - _ $124,098.00 .... 12 .. Eliminate Secondary Saturdayschool -- _ .. _______ $44,992.00 . 13 ... f:lanJ.P!~~~lrm .. Cf!~~?.!3-19.~J!ion) .... __ . __ __ --.. $41,5..Q.OO 1_4 . Tran~.Ef'.rJ_at_lq[!_Dep~_rtmen_t_,reducti(?~ .. ____ ,., __ $310,892.00 15 ___ Freo7.e_sal~cheduie and steps for all.em~ye~s __ .. $3,309,000.00 16 . _Eliminate~ing_newtextbooks __________ ,, ___ ... $~90,000_.Qq ~~ g~: b,;e:~:ra~~~~~~ecn~ 5 ~~:~es/Athletics --.. --- . ____ $~@~:~:~~~ 19 .. Cut_Director_of Su_ppJ)rtStaff Personnel _____ .. __ $93,301~00 __ 20 __ ... Cut Secreta;yjSuperintendent's Office _ ____ ,.. -~ .. $38-,3~~_.06 .. _2_1 . Reduce_Overtimebt50% . _______ ,.____ $102,969.00 22 Redu9e_Legalfees bl?['Y.!!__. ... ,_., ______ - - $_f?_7,750j_q 23 Reduce Out_ of District Travel _by 50% . . ______________ $64\u0026amp;tf\u0026gt;~PO / Reduce formula for assigning Assistant Principals . 24 . _ !reduce 8 eiementary_AP's and 3 Secondary AP's _ _ ---:$_814,422.q_Q 2~ _ ~liminate fg!ly Servic~ .... .. ---- __ . ____ .. __ $~00,00_0.oo Total All Cuts $11,704,24!J.00 4/21/2005 . . NAY-O6-05 FRI 12:14 PN FAX NO, .. ' Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan Proof of Receipt Received April 21, 2005 by ~---0 ~ }~- an employee of the Arkansas Department olEducatio. RECEIVED APR 2 l ,IAAl. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY P, 09 MlTCHELL WlLLJAMS SELIG GATES WOODYARD PllC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-688-8800 Date: 6/112005 2:24:10 PM Finn General Fax: 501-688-8807 Direct Fax: 501-918-7295 FAX COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS rossmLE TO: .a. U.J\"\\. -.JV.4. V V.J. RECIPIENT Horace Smith COMl'ANY ODM FAXNO. 171-0100 F.rom: F.ile Number: 22056 Total number of pages including cover: 5 Remarks/special instructions: If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: PRIVILGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following this cover sheet and contained in this facsimile trll.llSmission is confidential ll.lld covered by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the person( s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the nmied addressee or ll.ll employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), ploo.se do !!Q!Iead the accomptnying information. Note that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Anyone receiving this mess11ge in error should notify us immedi111ely by telephone and return the original of the trllllSmission to us 111 the above addxess by U.S. mail. Thank you fox youx coopeution. - - MlTCHELl WlLllAMS 5EL1GGATES WOODYARD PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock. AR 7220 I 501-688-8800 Facsimile: 501-688-8807 FAX COVER SHEET Date: June I, 2005 Time: PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT I. Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 2. Hon. Thomas Ray 3. Chris Heiler 4. Stevt Jones 5. John Walker 6. Robert Pressman 7. Mark Hagemeier 8. Horace Smith 9. Mark8W11ette From: Sam Jones file Number: 22056-1 COMPANY Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones John Walker, P.A. Attorney General's Office ODM Total number of pages including cover: 4 Remarks/special instructions: 11:19AM FAX NO. 604-5149 604-5237 376-2147 375-1027 374-4187 1-781-862-l 955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 PHONE NO. If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: Ann Overton 501-370-4295. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following lhis cover sheet and contained in this facsimile tr-ansmission is confidential and covered by the anomey-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the penon(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), please do D!ll read the accompanying information. Note that the dissemination, dislribution or copying of this commUl'litatiOJJ by lUlyont o\\htr than 1ht addm$CC is strit'lly prohibited. Arr;ont receiving lhis message in error should notify us immediately by telephone and return the original of the transmission lo us at the above address by U.S. mail. Thank you for your cooperation. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS l. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. lt acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring usociated with the LRSD increases any monitoring requilcd of or appropriate for the PCS SD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to ,educe its overall expenditures ~o a level corresponding to its reasonabJy anticipated reduced monitoring activities.: 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successfu1 claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard. the PCSSD is fuUy aware of the diffteulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSO response to PCSSO motion regarding school Choice 1ited on May 31, 2005. -  -  - -- - _ _ _ ................... '-' '-' A' VV V J.UJ\\. U ~ A.voi Stated another way, the PCSSD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, OATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the fortgoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the folJowing: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJc Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Mansas 7220 I Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220) Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capito! Avenue LinJe Roe.le, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett JO JO W. Third Street Little Rock., AR 7220 l Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN -2 2005 (fflCEOF DESEGREGATION MO!liTG:mm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget if a reduction m LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the. Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 (HICF.OF DESEG;,:~ . ti'.J.\\ :,lONI.TORJNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us VIA FACSIMILE \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Fax No.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment Very truly yours, ~ cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL l\\IlKE BEEBE FAX COVER SHEET DATE: June 1, 2005 Honorable William R. TO: Wilson, Jr. FROM: Mark Hagemeier FAX: 501.604.5149 DIRECT DIAL: 501 .682.3643 ie.t UU.1. / UU4 ------ ----- RE: LRSD vs. PCSSD Response to Court Letter Order Dated May 23, 2005 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (inc. cover): -4 --- 0 URGENT O CALL WHEN RECEIVE O BARD COPY TO FOLLOW O CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS: cc via facsimile: Honorable J. Thomas Ray, All Counsel and The Office of Desegregation Monitoring. If you have any problems with the transmission, please contact Lakeysha at (501) 682-9482. rms MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF TIIE ADDRESSEE(S). IT CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE ATTORNEY ..CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR OTIIERWISE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO TIIE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY USE OF nns INFORMATION OR DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF TIIlS COMMUNICATION, IS STR!CTL Y PROHIBITED. IF YOU HA VE RECEIVED THlS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA TIIE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. e:lbkesha walla:r\\l tfax cover sheet.doc THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Mark A Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General VIA FACSIMILE \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. United States District Counhouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 FaxNo.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Direct dill1: (501) 6!12-3b43 E-mail: m)rk.hag,!rneier@s_s..rtate.ar.us Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.st1te.ar.us/ -- ----- - - --- ---------- --- --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~ UUJ/ UU 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assjstant Attorney Mark A Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to OD.M's proposed budget if a reduction in LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ... . --- - - - -- ----- - - -- -- -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemejer, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served tbe foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, m 1vfitchell, WilliaruS, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suire 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220i Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Jolm W. Walker John Walker, P.A_ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ UU4/ UU4 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 425 WEST CAPITAL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE 'l!aJUU.l.l UU:\u0026gt; This facsimile message contains Information that is privileged, confidential, not subject to disclosure, and is intended only for the use of the person or entity named below. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent of the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is illegal and strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephons (collect) and return the original to the above address via U.S. Mail. Thank you. Please contact Paula at (501 I 375-1122 if there are any transmlttal problems. DATE: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 TO: Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. FAX No.: 604-5149 TO: Hon. Thomas Ray FAX No.: 604-5237 TO: Sam Jones FAX No.: 688-8807 A TO: Chris Heller WFAX No.; 376-2147 TO: John Walker FAX No.: 374-4187 TO: Robert Pressman FAX No.; 781-862-1955 TO: Mark Hagemeier FAX No.: 682-2591 TO: Horace Smith FAX No.: 371-0100 TO: Mark Burnett FAX No.: 375-1940 FAXED ONLY --X -- NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 5 FROM: Paula Adams Assistant to Stephen W. Jones HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Offlces In : Conway* A:rk3ns.is Nasnvtll0, Tennessee JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P .. i\\. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 ieJ UUZ / uu:\u0026gt; e-mau: Sicnes@t,1l com 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 {501) 375-1122 Tetecopter: (501) 375-1027 direct dial r,o,: (501) 707-552.o VIA FACSIMILE 604-5149 The Honorable William R. Wifson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 June 1, 2005 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School o;strict No. 1, et al Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed please find the North little Rock School District's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court and faxing it to Judge Ray, other counsel and ODM. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Attorney for NLRSD SWJ/pea enclosure cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile) Counsel of Record (via facsimile) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET l(f)UUJ / 005 For the first fifteen plus years of ODM's existence, it has been the custom and practice of these parties, and ordered by this Court, that the costs of ODM's budget be born by each district in the same proportion as that district's student population is of the total student population in the three districts combined. Now, the LRSD suggests that this formula should be changed for its benefit and the costs should be assigned based on the proportion of effort needed by the ODM to monitor each district's compliance with its plan. It is understandable that the LRSD has not taken this position before now. If it had, it is fair to say it would have paid for more to date than it paid under the present formula. While it is impossible to calculate with absolute precision the effort expended by the ODM on each district's plan compliance over the last fifteen years, it is fair to say that ODM has spent far more effort monitoring LRSD's plan compliance than the 48% 1 its students represent and far less monitoring the NLRSD than its 17% of students. To - change the rules only now that the dynamics have shifted would be patently unfair. The LRSD should realize a reduction in its actual costs related to ODM but these should be associated with the decrease in ODM's overall budget resulting from the reduction of resources needed for monitoring generally in light of LRSD's present status. It would appear from ODM's budget that just such decreases are occurring. This does not, however, justify a change in how those reduced costs should be apportioned to the respective districts. Wherefore, the NLRSD, for the reasons set forth above, asks this court to maintain the existing fonnula for the allocation of ODM's proposed budget; and for all other just and proper relief. June 1, 2005 By: 2 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 75-1122 Attorney for N District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET, has been served via facsimile, this 1 ST day of June. 2005, to the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 3 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Ro , FILED EAST\\J.S. DISTRICT COURT ERN D'ISTRICT ArH\u0026lt;ANSAS JUN O 1 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl.JM'MES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ' WESTERN DMSION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. .KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Rock School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school districts.  4. The Little Rock School District request is not one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) _I ,_ --------1\\ ;~: l - / \u0026lt;'.'\"] . 1:_,_,. , - /41 ., -~)\\._,,...--: j / . ,:. . v' C::t. Ltt_J\u0026gt; ...... _ Jrjhn W. Waiker -#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this I st day of June, 2005. n , I ) . - 1 I  \\ _; I - (7101~ - /, ... -1ft:..{:~ // r ,7/f c,-e:_llt~( /, J6hn W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET r. J. ,' L-+ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [. _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information conraiued in this facsimile message iS attorney privileged and confidential infonnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disse.mir.ation, distribution or copying of this communication is stri.c:tly prohibited. If you have received This communication in error, please immediate notify us by te!ep.b.one, and return the origillal message to us at the above add.rc.ss via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. -JOHN W W.U.KER SHAWN C!i!LDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A . .A'I'f'ORNEYATLAw 1723 BROADWAY 1rrrr.E RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONt {501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3'74-4187 June 1, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave, Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; Lener Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, p_.i,, DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 tW:!lDlQN P.OAO Lrm.E Roox, AllKANSAs 72210 PHo~. {SOl) 372-~a  F'\"\" (1501) :nz.342s EAun.: iuchenryd@ll'\\'bell.nl!t Please find the response of the Joshua Intervenors to your Letter Order dated May 23, 2005. As directed, this pleading is being filed with the clerk of the court with copies to Judge Ray, Mr. Horace Smith of ODM and all counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray ----------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRlCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Int.ervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Roel\u0026lt; School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases :from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing . duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school di.s1ricts.  4. Toe Little Rock Sehool Distriet request is n.ot one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit tha! the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Atkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fux) ; \\~~ --\u0026lt;J J_ d _/, ft  t (f!fJ.. f8A-. ,,k,bn W. Walker-#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this l st day of June, 2005. W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONlJORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterlywritten 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 ofDesegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 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 Court's 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 \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Be@~ 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 1st day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 10 IO W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~ ChristopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORIHG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~:_;:J O '? ===J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~:; !\\J1E3 ,.r;, '..;0 :':\"'.::: :''. G:\u0026lt;, C'...ER!-\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  v. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JUN -a 2005 OfRCEOF DESEsawmm MONmmllG NLRSD's SUR-REPLY REGARDING PCSSD's PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT In its Reply in this matter, the PCSSO raises some arguments for the first time. First, it contends that the fact that the NLRSO was declared unitary in student assignment several years ago while the PCSSO \"remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance\" justifies this Court in declaring the Arkansas School Choice Act in conflict with the PCSSO Desegregation Plan, especially since the NLRSD is no longer subject to court supervision. This argument begs the question. The School Choice Act is an expression of the public policy of the State of Arkansas and, as such , is entitled to deference from this Court unless no other alternative is available. In the present case, as has b.een discussed in previous filings, the School Choice transfers to the NLRSO have not placed any PCSSO school in danger of being out of compliance with its racial balance guidelines. Thus, the PCSSD asks this Court to take the draconian step of overturning state legislation on the basis of 1 speculation about possible future negative consequences. We respectfully submit that the time for this Court to take such a step is when the eventuality occurs, not now when there is not only no such development but no immediate threat of such an occurrence. Second, and perhaps most revealingly, the PCSSD argues that it is really all about the money. It argues it is in fiscal distress and that the loss of these few students has such significant financial impact as to justify this Court using the power of federal pre-emption to overturn the application of an otherwise lawful state statute. First, it should be noted that th is appears to be a question, of \"whose ox is gored.\" Obviously, the NLRSD loses the same revenue associated with these stud,ents that the PCSSD i gains if School Choice transfers are prohibited. The NLRSD has suffered significant student loss over the years but has nonetheless avoided fiscal distress. See Exhibit A attached hereto. Also, as Exhibit A reveals, enrollment fluctuates year to year, and it is equally logical, perhaps even more so, to speculate that PCSSD's number of students will increase, especially when one considers that the most of the undeveloped or developing areas in this county, such as Chenal, are in the PCSSD. More important, it is not, nor could it reasonably be, suggested that the PCSSD's current fiscal distress is related solely or even primarily to the loss of these few students . There are a myriad of potential explanations for the PCSSO's current financial situation and School Choice transfers may well be the least of them . Certainly, it is unfair to suggest transferring the economic consequences of these student transfers to the NLRSD simply because it has managed to avoid being designated a school district in fiscal distress. This is especially true in light of the fact that the NLRSD's participation in School- Choice transfers is non-discretionary. Ark. Code Ann. 2 I ! I ii  6-18-206(b)(3)(Supp. 2003).1 Likewise, it is unfair to shift to parents and students the burden of resolving the PCSSO's financial pressures by depriving them of their limited right to choose the school they will attend. Next, the PCSSD speculates that at \"some point in time in the future,\" it might become a majority black school district at which time M-to-M transfers would no longer be possible. Initially, it should be noted that even if the three school districts in Pulaski County are all majority black, it would not prohibit M-to-M transfers from: districts in surrounding counties. More important, however, such a development. is entirely speculative. All three of these districts could well be unitary in c;1II aspects, before this occurred , and growth could occur in the undeveloped or developing areas discussed above which could result in an increase in white students. On the other hand, even if the PCSSD were to become majority black, there is no reason to suspect that School Choice transfers would be significantly responsible for that change rather than, for example, simple demographic changes. The ultimate irony would then be the elimination of the one vehicle remaining to these districts for the exchange of students, the School Choice Act, which permits transfers on a \"greater than to lesser than\" basis rather than a \"majority to minority\" basis. Finally, the PCSSO suggests that overriding an otherwise valid state law applicable to every other school district in Arkansas is appropriate if it will assist the PCSSD in eliminating its fiscal distress. However, this reasoning is flawed . One must ask, if the Court is able to overturn one state regulation simply because of its potential financial impact on one of these districts, what other state regulations must it be 1 In its response, we cited Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-206(b)(3)(Repl. 2003), which was subsequently amended to the present version. Previously, only the sending district was compelled to participate, but that was amended to require the participation of both districts. 3 prepared to overturn? Student-teacher ratio? Facility standards? Minimum curriculum requirements? Minimum teacher salaries? The portent of such a decision is that this Court would be put in the impossible position of having to decide, regulation by regulation , and statute by statute, which should be retained and which should be overturned. It would be required to substitute its judgment for that of the Arkansas General Assembly regarding what the proper public policy for the State of Arkansas should be with respect to the education of its students. This asks too much of the Court and goes far beyond the boundaries of the Supremacy Clause of the United States. Constitution. WHEREFORE, the NLRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the PCSSD's Motion Regarding School Choice; and for all other just and proper relief. June 7, 2005 By: 4 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 -1122 Stephen W. Jones (78083) Attorney for North Little Ro District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD SUR-REPLY TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT, has been served via U.S. Mail, this J1h day of June, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington , MA 02173 5 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W: Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Off 1ce 501 771-8097 North Little Rock School District Racial Count 1974 -2004 ~~ Osto~:;e1974  ___!Y_on-B~~~~6 - Bli,;31 1 __I_o~06i ___ October 1975 ___ . 8,884 . 2,987 ... 11,871 _ :-g=:~;~ ~ ~~:= -~~:-~;; --_. !~:_;~~ October 1976 . 8,682 3,0mi=12 11,694 _ October 1979~- 7,641 .. 3,287 . 10,928 ___ October 1980 . __ _ 7,247 .__ 3,356 ___ 10,603 October 1981=t ___ 6,711_ 3,365 10,076 October 1982 . _ _ 6,474 _ 3,498 _ 9,972 October 1983_ 6, 194 __ 3,607 __ 9,_801 - October 1984 __ ___ 5,935 ; . _ 3,752 ____ 9,687 October 1985 1 __ 5,769 ; . .. 3,686 ___ 9,455 . October 1986 _ 5, 824 . _ 3, 865 ... 9, 689 October 1987 .. ____ 5, 740 3,997 ___ 9,737 ... October 1988 - .. 5,450 .. . 4,044 ___ 9,494 ____ October 1989 _' _ _ .. 5,208 , .. 4,218 _ _ 9,426 October 1990 __ /- 4,~. _ 4,279 9,194 g~~~~=~-;::; ~--= ::ffi+= . ::!::E:-~:~~~ October 1993 -  4,600 __ 4,485___ 9,085 October 1994 ___ 4,372~_4,691_ __ 9,063 October 1995 ' 4,057 4,844 8,901 _October 1996:r-- 4,033 _5,02t= . 9,053 ___Q ctober 1997 . _ 3,970 _5 ,222 __9~ 1 92 ___ October 1998_ . ___ . 4,001 ___ 5,262 __ 9,263 .... October1999 _ _ 3,814 . 5,188 _____ 9,002 . . October 2000 . -~ - .. __ _ 3,703 __ 5, 133 . 8, 836 . October2001 _ __ _ . 3,876 __ 5,183 _,. __ 9,059_ ----~:~:~~L __ _J~~:  . ;:~;! ---t:_; October 2004 3,814 5,296 9,110 ----- - -------------- j :i P - 2 EXHIBIT 06 / 03 /2005 FRI 15: 39 (TX/RX NO 7418 l ~ 002 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 Offices Tn: Conway, Arkansas Nashville. Tennessee 425 WEST CAPITOL UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 e-mail : sjones@111 .com Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard , PLLC 425 W. Capitol Avenue - Ste. 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller __ ... Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220_1 __ Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Dear Counsel: June 7, 2005 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 172_3 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ' Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue Suite 149 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Enclosed you will find a copy of the NLRSD's Sur-Reply Regarding PCSSD's Motion Regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act which was filed of record on June 7, 2005. SWJ/kmb Enclosures Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMAU.  I.ITTllROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education June 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECENEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III lU~ 0 0 1005 t1Ulli\\\\t~m~~ ~Oll\\10t\\\\llti Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you h~ve any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro , Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ~\"~* cottSmi~ 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,IIl Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 f;la~e:.a:6Jhi:!mQfmfill9-~yiff~6J~tTM.~ZWr\"Jf$.:uJi~tf1;~L~:tfielsmie EouoaaHoorEuoa11Yff\u0026amp;JiWlfM\u0026lt;\u0026gt;sT.sYbJ~P-ecioaic;aajusufia B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1768","title":"Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-04-18/2005-05-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","North Little Rock School District","School enrollment","School integration","Transportation","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1768"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["90 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice; District Court, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; District Court, Order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget; District Court, Notice of Filing of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION RESPECTING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTER VEN ORS I. The Arkansas School Choice Act was enacted in 1989 and is codified at 6-18-206 - of the Arkansas Code. 2. Certain provisions of the Act permit the cross-district transfer of students under certain specified conditions and pursuant to certain limitations. 3. The North Little Rock School District is currently utilizing the School Choice Act to permit the transfer of substantial numbers of white PCS SD students all as depicted in Exhibit A, an analysis performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 4. It is the belief of the PCS SD that the volume of these transfers is having a current and will have a negative short-term affect upon its ability to fully desegregate its schools and to attain unitary status. 5. The PCSSD further believes that Section 6-18-206(f)(5) of the School Choice Act prohibits the current operation of the Act as it is currently being applied and implemented. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court suspending the current operation of the School Choice Act between the PCSSD and the NLRSD at least until such time as the PCSSD is declared unitary as to student assignment. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 0) ty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett I 010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 I le I I I I I I I ~ I I  I FINDINGS ON THE NORIB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PARTICIPATION IN ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE AND ITS EFFECT ON SCHOOLS IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-05 February 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas EXHIBIT I /I I  I I I ~ Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District 2004-05 Table of Contents Introduction . . ...... . ....... .. ....... . ..... . ...... . . .. .... . ..... . ... . ..... . ... 1 ADE Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedures, and Enforcement of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act ..... . .. . . ..... .. . . ... . ...... 3 NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 . .... . ........... 1       .                 10 Sources of NLRSD School Choic~ Students Residing in the PCSSD 2004-05 ... . .. . .. . . . . 11 Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 . ... . .. ...... . .................. . . 12 Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice . .. . ...... . ........ .. . . .. 13 le INTRODUCTION The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the Urrited States District Court, prepared this report. ODM assists the Court in monitoring the compliance of the three Pulaski County school districts with court orders and the desegregation plans that form the substance of their settlement agreements. Key Issues  The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) asserts that its ability to desegregate its schools is impeded by the continued loss of white students from the Sherwood area who transfer to the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) under the provisions of the Arkansas School Choice Act.  The PCS SD further questions the \"propriety\" of the NLRSD enrolling white school choice students from PCSSD in predominantly white schools in the NLRSD. Purpose The PCS SD and NLRSD requested that ODM establish a data profile of the students transferring from the PCS SD to the NLRSD under the School Choice Act and provide data on the demographic effects of school choice transfers on both districts. This data will serve as a reference for the districts to use during discussions the parties scheduled for February 23, 2005. Background on Arkansas School Choice Public school choice in Arkansas allows students to attend a public school in a district other than the one in which they reside. The General Assembly passed the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 to give parents and guardians greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their children's individual educational needs. Before a student can attend a school in a nonresident district, the student's parent or guardian must complete and submit an application to the nonresident district they desire the student to attend. The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than July 1 of the year the student would begin the fall semester in the nonresident district. Under the Arkansas Public School Choice guidelines, no student may transfer to a nonresident district where the percentage of enro11ment for the student's race exceeds that of the student's resident district. Additionally, no student may transfer under Public School Choice if that transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. Since the PCSSD is predominantly white and the NLRSD predominantly African-American, only white students may transfer to NLRSD via school choice. The Public School Choice Act charges the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) with the responsibility of morritoring school districts' compliance with provisions of the law. le I I ~ Information Sources The student enrollment and racial composition figures contained in this report were extracted from ODM's report entitled 2004-05 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. The data we used to prepare that annual report were furnished to us by the three Pulaski County school districts. We drew our total numbers of school choice students in the NLRSD from a printout of school choice students provided by the NLRSD district. In addition, we used the same information to identify the specific PCSSD school attendance zones in which those students live. In addition to examining enrollment data, ODM monitors interviewed both the principals ofNLRSD schools receiving school choice students and the PCS SD schools most significantly affected by the loss of those students. Finally, we interviewed some of the parents of school choice students to detennine which factors affected parents' decisions to pursue the school choice option for their children. Terminology The Pulaski County desegregation litigation refers to only black and white racial designations. Traditionally,, we have counted students who are of racial or ethnic groups other than white or African-American (such as Hispanic or Asian) along with white students in statistical totals and comparisons in order to remain consistent with the two racial categories identified in the districts' desegregation plans. Page 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES GOVERNING THE GUIDELINES, P.ROCEDURES,AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT August2003 1.00 PURPOSE 1.01 These rules-shall be known as the Arbnsas Department of-Education Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedure$, and Enforcement of the Arlcansas Public School ChoiceAct 2.00 AUTHORITY 2.01 The Arkansas State B:aard ofEducatian'sauthority forpromulg~ting these .rules is pursuant to.Ark. Code Ann. \"~11-105,  6-15-429, and .6-18- 206. 3.00 DEFINITIONS 3 .QI Student - for purposcs .. oftbis rule means ~ person legally enrolled or entitled to .be ,enwlled in Ii pilblit .school distriet in Arkansas. \"3 .02 Resident district - for purposes of this rule means the.-ptiblicschool -district wherc .. a studentis considered to reside pursuant IQ Ark. Code:Ann. - 6-l8- 2!)2, 3.03 Ni:m-resident district  for p.urposes_.ofthis rule-means the,pulilic school ,district a student. last made legal application to,attend pursuant\" to the Arkansas :Pubiic School Choice Act:'for:the,currentschool year. 3 .04 -A_.p.plication -.for purposes f;lf tl:iis r-ule. mcans:a request submitted t0 .a non- resident district to transfer from a-student\\s-rcsident district to a nonresident district on the official form approved.'by the Arkansas Department of Education.  J .05 Boar-d - for purposes ofthis rule means.the Arkansas State Board of -Education. 3;06 Depal1ment-for.purposes of this rule means.the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.07 Minority - for purposcs ,of this rule minority includes thefollowing racial ,:groups: African American; Hispanic, Asian .or. Pacific Islander, American .1ndian or Alaskan Native. 3:0$. tv{ajoricy  for pul,'poscs :of this rule majorify includes the following racial group: Caucasian: Page 3- 4.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL DISTRJCTPARTICIPATION lN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 4.'0 i Each school district sh~II panicipa:te in publ-ic school choice consistent with this section. 4.02 Every.s.chool district must adopt a resolution setting forth specific standards for. acceptance and rejection of applications. 4.02.1 Such standards may include the capacity of .a schoQI program, cla:ss, grade level, or school building. 4.02.2 School districts shall not be required to add teachers, staff, or classrooms or .in any way exceed current requirements or standards established by existing law when considering whether to accept,'an application. 4.02.3 A school district's standards shall include a statement that priority will be given to applications.of siblings or step-siblings residing in the same residence :or household,of students already attending the district l?y-choice where an application has been filed. 4.02.4 A school .district's standar,ds for -a~ptancc and rejection -of applications shalLnot include a student'.s previous academic achie:v.ement, athletic or. extr.acumcular al,ilicy, handicapping cond.iti.ons; English pr.ofitiency lev.el, .or:prcvious rlisciplinary proceedings except that an expulsion from .. 'BDother school dis.trict .may be included as a standard. 4.03 Adistrictshall make public announcements overthe0broadcast media and in print media at such times and in such manner so as to inform parents or guardians ofstudents in agjoining distri:cts of the availability -of the program,'the July 1 application deadline, .and'the-rcq.uirements lind procedure for nonresidentstud~nts to participate in the program. 5.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPLlCATJONS FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO TIIEPUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 5;01 .Any s.tutlent may make application to enroJI and attend a scihool in a district in which the stdent do.es not reside, subject to the restrictions and procedures, contained in this rule-and regulation and Arkansas law. 5.:01 .1 Before,'2 student may attend a sch.o.ol in a nonresident district, the 'Student's parent or guardian must submit an application on the Page4 fonn approved by and provided by the Department (see attached .application) to the nonresident district. 5:Dl .2 The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than.July 1 of the year the student would begin th.e fall semester in the nonresident school district. 5.02 Any student attending a residentdistrict classified as being. in academic distress shall be el~gible and entitled to apply to transfer to another geograph-ically contiguous nonresident district not in academic distress during the .time period a district .is classified as being in academic distress subject to the restrictions.allow~ in 5.02.1 and 8,0D. 5.02.J Any student submitting an 11pplicatfon under this section shall not be required to file the petition by the July 1 deadline, but.shall meet all other rcquirements:and conditions of this rule. 5 .03 Within thiny (30) days of receipt of.an application for public scho.ol choice transfer from.a nonresident.student, the nonresident district shall notify the parent or guardian and the resident dis.wict in writing . .( via first class United States mail) asto whether the nonresident district.accepted .or rejected.the student's application. 5.03'1 Tfthe application is rejected, the nonresident district must state in the notification letter -the . specific reasons for rejection. 5J'J3.2 Iftbe application is accepJcd, the nonresident district shall state in the notification letter: a. An abspJute-d.cadiine for the student tQ enroll in the .district, or the acceptance notification is mill; and b. Any instructions fQr the renewal procedures established by the district 5.04 Any :student that stibinitted -a valid applfoation -for transfer, which was deriicd a trans(er by the nonresident district, may petition the Board to r.econsider the applicationfor transfer. The petitioning party shall se.t forth its arguments 1l!ld evidence supportin_gthe request for the Board's reconsideration ofthe'11pplicati.on along with a copy of the nonresident district's :riotificatlori of.rejection letter. 5.04.I The_petitiori for reconsideration before the Board shall be .in ,w..iling and shall. be postmadced (via certified first class United States-mail; retum r.ecelpt requested) no later than ten (IO} days after the student or Stlldent'.-s parents or guardian receives notice ,of reject-ion .from1hc nonresidentdistrict. Any request for a hearing :l?cfore 'the lioard must tie made in the petition for. reconsideration. Page5 .5.04.2 The petitioning party must mail or personally file their peiition for reconsideration of the:application to tbe nonresident district with the Office of the Director of the Department 5.04.3 The nonresident district may sqbmit iri writing-additional faformatioq, evidence or arguments supporting its rejection of tbe student's application. 5.04.4 The Board, at its sole discretion, .may grant a .publfo hearing -on the petition for r.eeonsideration or con.sider without n public hearing the pet-ition; briefs and evidence submitted in. Writing before issuing its final decision on the petition for reconsideration of the application. 5.04.5 The Board may requirethe nonresident district .to reconsider its rejection ofthe student iipplicatioil 'by a date.established by the Bo.ard before deciding whether to_,grantthe petition for reconsideration:of the -application. 5;04.6 The Board, at its discretion, shall have the -authority to require any person.associated wjth the .studem application (i.e. student, parent, guardian, etc.), the-nonresident district or,the resident -district to appear iri person .or by _pleiiding before-the Board as .a witness-on the.matter of a.petition for reconsideration,-ofan appJication. 6.00 TRANSPORTATION OF STUD~TS\u0026lt;IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 6.01 Transportation of a ,studcht:from the r.eside.nt district to a -nomesident district is the responsibility of the ~tudent .or the student's parents,or guardians. -6.0l.l When -a student:transfer:s :under section .S,04, .. -the ,cost.of transportationofa student from the,resident district to the no~sident district shall be the responsibility of the resident district. 6.02 The -nonr.esident district may enter into a written agreement with the  ~udent studenfs parents or,guardians, or resident school djstrfot to pr.ci:v1de tr:an~ortation to .er from any place in the resident .district to the nonresident -djstric'~ or both.  6.03 A nonr:esiderjt disefJct $h11U terminate transponlition services toa student .-upon-receiprofwr.itten no:tice (via certified first class United States mail, return T.ece\"i_pt.requested}frorn 1hc-Beyilitmerit to cease and desist transporting a student:fromthe student-'s resident.district. Page 6 I ,_ I I I  I 7 .Ob NONRESIDENT DISTRICT'S RESPONSfBILJTlES 7:01 The nonresident district shall acceptall credits toward graduation of a student that were awarded by another district. 7.02 The nonresident district shall .award a rliploma to a nonresident student accepted for transfer under the Public -School Choice Program if that student meets the nonresident district's graduation requirements. 7.03 The nonresident student accepted far: . iransfer under the Public Scho.ol Choice Program shall be counted as a.part cif the average daily membership of the nonresidentdisirict to which the student transfr;rred. i.oo PROVISIONS FORANDLIMitATIONS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE TRANSFERS 8:02 8.03 No stl.!dentmay transfer to a nonresident districtw.herethe p.ercentage of enrollment for the student's race exceeds that percentage in the student's resident district, except as.provided in 8.01.1 and 8.0i.2. 8.0:l.l A-transfer is permitted if{l)theti:lUlsferis :betwceo distr~cts within the .same county; and{2) ifthe .trailsfei' does. not result in either districtexceedigg,Uie ,acceptable =gc or varil!nce for representation ofaninority/maj.ority~dents. The .acceptable range .of~ariance., is,detCffllined,as provjded ;in .Section 8.02, or R.O 12 A transferis permitted :if each school.:district within the county does.not have:\"a ,.critical mass,of minority percentages of more than ten .percent (JO) ofany single race and the fr.ans fer is between two school tliStricts in the sanie:county. The Depart!J).ent shall each.year compute the minority/majority racial percentage(s}ofthe public sch6.61 population for each cotmty from the October Annual $chooJ Report. School districts may vary jn the underrepresentation or over~representation.cifminority/majbrity students bye maximum of'twcnty-fi:ve.p.ercent (25%) oftl')e difference in majo:rity/rhinoritypercenteges, for the county anletennined by the D~artment, Fpr.-:exa~p;le, when the Department has calculated the county'Hacial balance for eacb student race category, each district is allowed :~n ovcr-'represen.tation or under-representation of minority or ma jor1ty students ofa range, of up to twenty-five (25%) of the county's racial'balance.    No student transfer sha'lrbe permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such.a ,transfer would .conflict with a district's Page 7 I desegregation court order or ad~trict's. court-approved desegregation plan. ' 9.00 REPORTING AND MONITORING OBLIGATIONS 9.;0 I The Department shall monitor schooldistricts for colnplianee with the Public School Choice law (Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-206) and these rules. 9.02 Each school district shall provide to the Department, within thirty (30) working. days. of receipt of a written request from the Department, any information or reports the Department deems necessary for. review and determination of thescho:ol district's compliance with the Public School Choice Jaw and these rules. 9;03 All s.chool dlstricts shaJJ.reporHo the Equity Assistance Center of the Department,on an annual basislhe race, .gender, and o.ther pertinent infonnation needed tl:i properly monitor compliance with theprovisions,.of this section. 9.04 The reports may be on tho.sefor.ms that are prescdbed by the Department, or the data may be submitted electronically :by the district using a format authorized by the Department. 9;05 The Department may withhold state aid from any school district that fails t(l) file its r,epoJt each year or.fails.to file any other information with a published deadline requested from school ,districts by the Equity Assistance Center, so fo~g .~s thircy,(3l\u0026gt;} calendar d~ys are given between the request for the information and the published deadline, except when the requC$t .comes from  a member pr committee of the General Assembly. 10.00 DISPUTES  I 0.01 Any school district rriay petition the .StateBoard of Education to resolve alleged disputes0arising under subsectiens (!:!) - (f) oi'A.rk. Code Ann. ' 6- 18.:206. 10,02 Any,st::.hool district seeking to petition the-Stiite Board of Education must subi:nitwith its pet1.tion pr,o.of ofpublic nofrc~ of th.e. district's intenttq .petition:the State Board. The public notice shall.be piib1ished;.at least -an:ee per weekf or.twq consecutive weeks in a new~aper of general :circulation in ,all the school:distiicts impacted or involved in .the ,aUeted d.isp.ute. Hk03 The school dist:r-ictshall file its written petition with the Office .of the Director .of the Oe,piufunent at least thirty (30) working days prior to the Sta:te Board of.Edwcat10Ii rrieeting where the ~petition will be hear.d. Page 8 ,_ I I 10.04 10.05 The schoel di-striet :s'hair provide_proof in the petitidn that they have served (via certified first lass United'States-mai._, return receipt requested) a copy of their petition,to. the super-intendentc\u0026gt;fa:11 other'scbool districts invoJved in the alleged dispute: The petition shall set forth in writing the,particular issues of dispute under the Public School Ch9ice pr~gram, .the specific relief for whieh the petitio11ii1fparty is requesting the Board to-address; and sha:11 list all school distri.cts and other relevant parties in the dispute, I 0.:06 The petition shall set forth what efforts.have been attempted by ail relevant school boards and superintendents of the involved school districts to resolve the alleged dispute. 10.07 The petition shall state in writing whether the \\petitioning .school district requests A hearing before the Boar:d. I 0.08 The Bpa:rd, in it$ sdle discretion, shall determine whether to grant a pubHc hear.~g -on a.peiition or to take action on the petition and pleadings submitted without granting.:a: public bearing. 10.09 Any si.h00Ldistr,ict that is. listed as.:a party in a pe~ition to resolve a dispute .shall file a wr.itten-,response with tbc 'Officc: -of'the Director of the Deparnnent. The written CC$ponse sha:U be.submitted iorthe Board's consideration al:ong0with the. petition within ten (10)-working days of receipt of noti.ce ofibe p.etition. ro. LO The Board shall ~~e a written decision regarding all issues of alleged disp.ute mentioned in .the petition, anti the written decision shalJ be served on.-an the schooi districts listed as.parties of dispute in the petition (via certified fustc-l~s UniteciStates rnail, .retum receipt requested) within twenty (20) working days oftheiBoard'sfina-1 dec.ision. I OJ 1 Except for the procedures specifically set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-18- 20.6 and these ,rules, aHhear,ings conducted by the Board shall be c:.bnducted pursuantt,o,the Ar.kansa.s Administtative,Procedures Act, Ark. Cod.e Ann.  25-15-201 et. seq .. Page 9 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'School Crestwood Elem Indian Hills Elem Lakewood Elem Meadow Park North Heights NLRHS-West District Totals NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 .Tptal l:. ru oll,ne~ \" ... , Sche\u0026gt;ol Phoice l;nrqllment . Data Su~mary I 81, cLI . White \" !Total .'' Grade 'Level  '.Enrollment I 104 I 212 I 376 Kindergarten 13 School choice students comprise 13% of 111 grade 6 the total enrollment and 18% of white students. 2nd grade 6 3rd grade g Crestwood is 72% white with school choice 4\"' grade 10 students and 68% non-black without school choice students. 5\"' grade 6 Total so  I 11a I 390 I 508 Kindergarten 19 School choice students comprise 24% of 111 grade 22 the school's total enrollment and 32% of white students. 2nd grade 18 3rd grade 20 Indian Hills is 77% white with school choice 4\"' grade 16 students and 69% white without them. 5\"' grade 28 Total 123 I 100 I 25s I 361 Kindergarten 5 School choice students comprise 3% of the 11 grade 0 total school enrollment and 4% of white students. 2nd grade 1 3rd grade 2 Lakewood is 71 % white with school choice 4\"' grade 1 students and 70% white without them. 5\"' grade 2 Total 11 I 160 I 35 I 195 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 11 grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I 261 I 203 I 470 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 1st grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I s1s I 631 I 1,309 11 th grade No info Impact of the single school choice student 12th grade available is statistically minimal. Total 1 I s,61s I 3,ss1 I 9,496 Kindergarten 39 School choice students from PCSSD 1st grade 28 comprise 2% of the NLRSD enrollment. The district is 41 % white with the PCSSD 2nd grade 25 school choice students and 40% without 3\"' grade 31 them. 4th grade 27 5th grade 36 No Info 1 Total 187 - - -------------- Sources of NLRSD School Choice Students Residing In the PCSSD 2004-05 PCSSD Schools E E .c a, a, iii j\":' \"O iii a, i ~ CD = :! C :f '\u0026gt; \u0026gt;CD ~ \"O i :E C e 0 I 0 % :E C ::, i C ~ 0 i ! C C 0 0 .s en J C) I .!! J 1 1 J \u0026gt;- i en ~ .5 Q. 'E u .II: ! .! ! ~ ftl ::, ftl ftl ~ Cl m 0 0 0 0 :c -, 0 a: a, ~ a\u0026gt;,- :::, Crestwood 1 5 2 6 2 1 3 7 2 - - 6 7 - 4 4 50 lndlan HIiis - 2 2 15 8 1 - 8 - 1 1 32 42 - 1 10 123 Iii Lakewood Elem 1 2 8 2 - - - 1 - - - - 4 1 - - - 11 .c Meadow Park - - - - - - - u - - - - 1 - - - - 1 a, a0 , North Heights - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Di: .z.J NLRH-West - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 Totals 2 9 6 21 10 2 4 15 2 1 1 43 51 1 5 14 187  Based on the information prnvided, we could not determine the PCSSD school zones in which these students reside. I The Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 le I PCS SD' s Plan 2000 continues the standards for student assignment and guidelines for racial composition established in the district's 1992 desegregation plan. The plan defines a specific range in which the racial composition of each PCS SD school, except Bayou Meto, and the interdistrict schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill) is to fall. The minimum enrollment of African-Americans is to be 20% at each school; the maximum differs between the elementary and secondary organizational levels because the upper limits are based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage ofblack enrollment at each of these two levels. The racial balance range for PCS SD elementary schools in 2004-05 is 20% to 49% black. The targeted range for secondary schools is 20% to 54% black. I I I I I I I I I I I The ideal compositi_on at the interdistrict schools will be as close to 50%-50% as possible, with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the interdistrict school. Baker Interdistrict School is not subject this requirement. 2004-05 Actual Enrollment 2004-05 Enrollment Schools Wrth the addition of NLRSD school choice students Black White Total Pct. Black White Total Pct. Black Black Bayou Meto 10 383 393 3% 10 385 395 3% Cato 97 264 361 27% 97 273 370 26% Crystal HIii 401 413 814 49% 401 419 820 49% Clinton 337 305 642 52% 337 326 663 51% Dupree 134 1n 311 43% 134 187 321 42% Harris 196 46 242 . 81% 196 48 244 80% Jacksonville 282 263 545 52% 282 267 549 51% Oak Grove Elem. 98 290 388 25% 98 292 390 25% Oakbrooke 108 255 363 30% 108 270 378 29% Pinewood 178 252 430 41% 178 253 431 41% Scott 30 96 126 24% 30 97 127 24% Sherwood 144 248 392 37% 144 291 435 33% Sylvan Hills Elem. 137 237 374 37% 137 288 425 32% Sylvan Hills High 440 610 1,050 42% 440 611 1,051 42% Tolleson 116 189 305 38% 116 121 310 37% Page 12 1. le I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice The following information is based on our conversations with school administrators, parents, and daycare providers regarding some of the reasons PCSSD parents chose to send their children to NLRSD schools under school choice. Convenience Some parents and administrators mentioned that the geographic contiguity of Indian Hills Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, and Lakewood Elementary in the NLRSD to Sherwood neighborhoods of the PCSSD as a factor in school choice transfers. Numerous Sherwood-area parents work in North Little Rock ( e.g. Baptist Memorial Hospital) and find it easier to deliver their children to one of the aforementioned NLRSD schools during the morning commute and make arrangements for them to attend after-school programs located in close proximity to the schools. Proximity of Quality Pre-School Programs and After-School Care Our study shows that 123 school choice students attend Indian Hills Elementary in the NLRSD. This number far exceeds the next highest number of 50 at Crestwood Elementary. Our investigation of the seeming popularity of Indian Hills revealed that the proximity of the well-known First United Methodist Church pre-school and after-school programs is one of the factors leading to Sherwood area parents seeking a placement at Indian Hills. The First United Methodist Church facility is located directly across the street from Indian Hills. According to the assistant director of the First United Methodist pre-school program, numerous parents who reside in the PCS SD enroll their children in the pre-school program at the church. Once those children reach school age, their parents pursue a school choice transfer so their children can attend the church's after-school program. The assistant director cited the proximity of the First United Methodist program to a public school, parents' familiarity with the staff, and a sense of continuity for the children as factors affecting school choice. In 1996, First United Methodist discontinued transportation from the Sherwood area schools to the after-school program, thus making Indian Hills Elementary a more attractive choice for parents whose children had attended the pre-school program. We found that some Sherwood area parents whose children participate in the Lakewood United Methodist Church Mother's Day Out program become interested in the adjacent Lakewood Elementary School as their offspring reach school age. Familiarity with other parents whose children attend Lakewood, in addition to an established routine, tend to attract parents to seek a school choice transfer to Lakewood. Our inquiry revealed that when Sherwood area parents in the PCSSD viewed their area school and an NLRSD school as equal, the availability and convenience of reliable after-school care became the deciding factor in pursuing school choice. Page 13 r  - ' I I I I I I I I I I \"Curb Appeal\" Some PCSSD parents cited what they perceived to be the poor condition of some facilities in the district as a factor as they weighed where to send their children to school. Most educators no doubt view the \"curb appeal\" or attractiveness of a school building to be a shallow basis for selecting or rejecting a school. However, the reality is that to some patrons the building is a reflection of the school and if they don't find the edifice appealing, they won't bother to investigate the program. Page 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 is codified at ACA 6-18-206. Basically stated, it permits a degree of transfer between school districts under certain prescribed conditions and pursuant to certain statistical measures calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Currently, the North Little Rock School District is accepting a substantial number of white PCSSD students to its district, particularly at the elementary level, pursuant to School Choice. These students are being largely drawn from established PCSSD student assignment areas for Sylvan Hills Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, Oakbrook Elementary and Clinton lnterdistrict School. The PCSSD states that these transfers are compromising its ability to maintain the racial balance goals to which it committed in Plan 2000, all of which likewise date from 1989. 6-18-206 (f)(5) provides that: In any instance where the foregoing provisions [the transfer . provisions] would result in a conflict with a desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan, the terms of the order or plan shall govern; The Arkansas Department of Education has promulgated rules governing the operation of School Choice. Rule 8.00 is headed Provisions for and Limitations on Public School Choice Transfers. Sub-part 8.03 states: No student transfer shall be permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such a transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. 1 The North Little Rock School District is majority black. However, it was declared unitary as to racial balance several years ago. In the meantime, it has somehow managed to reconfigure certain elementary schools, including Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary so that they are actually whiter than the schools in the PCSSD from which they currently draw School Choice children. (See Exhibits to motion). The PCSSD believes that these circumstances represent a conflict with both the M-to-M stipulation and order as well as Plan 2000. The M-to-M stipulation was agreed to and ordered by the Court during the second half of the 1980s. It sets forth the rules pursuant to which cross-district transfers can be made in this case. The PCSSD submits as a federal court order, it legally trumps the School Choice Act and precludes its operation, at least as it is currently being applied, in these instances. This is true not only because federal law predominates over state law in these circumstances but also because these transfers are artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCS SD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance. This Court should rule that the current application of the Arkansas School Choice Act should be suspended until the PCSSD has been adjudicated to be unitary. 1 Although subsection (t)(7)(g) authorizes the State Board of Education to resolve disputes arising under this section, the PCSSD is informed that the State Board has traditionally declined to exercise its discretionary authority for desegregation cases that remain in litigation. 2 Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Scho u / , Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol  Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett l O l O W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 :t::- FILED ,._.. ~DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -. -;. WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 7 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t:.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFFDEP CLERK v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. APR 2 8 2005 INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING INTERVENOR$ - - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND COMES NOW, the Defendant, North Little Rock School District, et al., by and through its attorney, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A., and for this motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act states as follows: 1. Service was perfected on Defendant April 18, 2005, via U.S. mail. The time to respond within the rules including the additional three days for mailing would be May 2, 2005. 2. We respectfully request an additional seven days in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act. The requested extension would be up to and including May 9, 2005. 3. We have contacted the counsel for Pulaski County Special School District regarding the extension of time to respond. Counsel has no objections to the extension. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the court to extend the time in which to respond up to and including May 9, 2005, and fo'r all other just and proper relief. April 27, 2005 By: Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Jjttle-ReGk.,..Arkansas 72201 '{:, )7-11. :_2- . -l / ; A,{.lcl-(_,J, ,_---- ~hen W. Jones (7S:08 ) Attorney for North Little ock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing , Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2th day of April, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little fwc-k--;-AR 72201 / ~ ' . ~i .l ,, . \\ ---- /  l.1.{,--L \\ _ :~--. .,.~-- -.-siap;:w Jones :. / '. ,,/ Offices In: Conway, Arkansas Nashvill e, Tennessee JACK, lLYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier: (501) 375-1027 April 27, 2005 James McCormack Court Clerk United States District Court Eastern District Western Division 402 US Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 e-mail: s1ones@1l j.com di rect dial no. : (50 1) 707-5520 APR 2 3 2005 --OF-~ICE-'lf -- RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 WRW Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter is the original and 10 copies of North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond . Please return the extra file stamped copies to the courier. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /pea enclosures cc: Parties of Record Sincerely, GJodb OdCW114/ Paula Adams Legal Assistant t\" ILt:.U U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR 2 8 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ ~=-=-c= EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. APR 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is Defendant North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Doc. No. 3913) to PCCSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act. There are no objections. For good cause shown and because there are no objections, NLRSD's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is GRANTED.  Accordingly, NLRSD must file a response by 5 p.m. Monday, May 9, 2005. -If. IT IS SO ORDERED thi.Jff_ d; of April, 2005. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREDON ~ftlCT JUDGE '::' -::r'.ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. .iT i RALE 58A~~a)fRCP 4-~?$_-s::; B~,4 -. ;. ,.., ... ~ 3' -,-,, 91 4  ri~9. Arkansas -~-::=-..,,,,_ ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,____- ~,..,~ 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.v.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education April 29, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III R-ECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General 's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, , J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier TATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar # 9 251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 29, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 S.cott Smith - - --- ----- - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY - 3 2005 REOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT - EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS M,~.Y   2 2005 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --:::D-:=:EP,,.-:C:;:-L;::-;ER=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the OD M's proposed budget will be accepted as p\u0026amp;.ed and become effe~tive immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED_this .. day of May, 2005. TM\u0026amp; DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH~~ 58__.ANm:9(a) FRCP  ON S: ;L,'(}~ BY ~ ae2 ' ; UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring A United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas -------------------- One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 29, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached for your approval are the revised proposed ODM budgets for 2004-05 and 2005-06. The format ofthe_budget document follows that of OD M's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Polly Ramer Office Manager Enc. e. -LRSD NLRSD PCSSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit OroerofDecemberl2, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004--05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04 %of 2004--05 2003-04 2004--05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004--05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocatlon (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 N/A 200,000 N/A N/A 200,000 N/A 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 200,000 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of OD M's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 8,000.00 _ 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures __ --_ 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other brganizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area orin general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page4 - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003-04 Budget 121 .00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003-04 Budget 48,860.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691 .00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2003-04 Budget 400.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 - Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3 .29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31,173 Act11 of1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 2at11 year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fiinge benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures Expenditures 80,018.00 78,447.40 75,311 .00 Below is a breakdown b Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21.48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 Page 6 -Below is a breakdown b cate o Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,21-9.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3, 120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 4,000.00 - Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 572.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 572.00 - 2005-06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase in the annual premium. Page 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NLRSD's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 2003-04 Actual  .......................... . 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 257.66        oooo      uoOoHOO oo 61,042.00 62,864.34 127,415.00 520.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES Communications Dues and Fees Equipment Food Services Management Services Periodicals Printing \u0026amp; Binding Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services Rent Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance Resource Library Salaries Benefits Staff Development Supplies Travel 2003-04 BUDGET 8,000.00 735.00 500.00 0.00 5,000.00 121.00 6,000.00 1,700.00 48,860.00 400.00 0.00 405,419.00 80,018.00 0.00 6,000.00 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual 7,813.33 930.00 2,590.99 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,033.07 1,717.50 .,,_ :t,?PQ.0\u0026lt;:t\\ 434.95 ' . . ,, 400.o~F 0.00 2004-05 Estimated 9,006.00 265.00 i, 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,245.00 1,554.00 50,691 .00 52,564.og:  252.00 ' '400;9ct; 332,042.00 75,311 .00 0.00 4,000.00 1,066.00 572.00 500:oci;; Jra~Jfo1 ~- 446.739.0Q!; 0.00 F~LED N THE N U.S. DISTRICT COURT I U ITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTER~J DIGrn:cT r.;:::wiSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCO;'.:.:/\\CK, CLERK By LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ----:P=-L=-A-=--=-=-1N- :::T=-=-1F =fDE=.P,... .c,-LE-R- K v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS RECEIVED M~Y 10 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAl\\ON MONllORIMG INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, AC.A 6-18-206 sets forth the - public policy of the State of Arkansas in favor of parents and students having \"greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their individual educational needs.\" Id. , 6-18-206(a)(1 )(1999 Repl.) \"The General Assembly further finds that giving more options to parents and students with respect to where they attend public school  will increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the State's schools .... \" Id., at 6- 18-206(a)(2). As a result, the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas determined that \"[a] public school choice program is hereby established to enable any pupil to attend a school in a district in which the pupil does not reside , subject to the restrictions contained in this section\". Id., at 6-18-206(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). The PCSSD suggests that the NLRSD's acceptance of students transferring pursuant to the School Choice Act is somehow discretionary with the NLRSD. See 1 PCSSD Motion Respecting the School Choice Act, paragraph 3. This is not accurate. - While the Act does permit a receiving district to refuse to accept any school choice transfers at all, AC.A.  6-18-20(b)(3), it does not allow districts to discriminate between students as to who it will accept outside of a specific and limited list of statutory exceptions. Rather, it creates an obligation to accept transfers unless one of the specifically delineated exceptions applies. A fair reading of the Act makes it clear that any \"rights\" it creates attach to the parents and students, not to the district. The latter has only obligations. In fact, parents and students even have a right to appeal the denial of a school choice transfer to the Arkansas Board of Education. Ark. Dept. of Educ. Rules Governing School Choice Act, 5.04 (found at page 5 of Ex. A to PCSSD  Motion). It is noteworthy that the individuals whose \"rights\" will be affected by the decision on this motion, that is, the parents and students, are unrepresented in this proceeding. The PCSSD now invites this Court to disregard summarily the rights of these parents and students and the express public policy of the State of Arkansas by declaring that the School Choice Act is incompatible with the M-to-M Stipulation and the desegregation plan of the PCSSD. This issue arises because of the differing racial restrictions contained in the School Choice Act and the M-to-M Stipulation. The latter requires that a transferring student be in the majority in both his school and his school district and be transferring under circumstances where he will be in a minority in both his new school and his new district. The School Choice Act, on the other hand, requires only that a student be transferring from a district where his race is in a greater proportion to a district where his race is in a lesser proportion. In the present case, the 2 transferring students satisfy the school choice definition but only meet three of the four - requirements of the M-to-M definition since they would be transferring to a school where they would be in a majority status. This does not mean, however, that these transfers do not benefit the NLRSD in its desegregation efforts. These students create an additional pool of white students who may matriculate to the NLRSD's majority black secondary schools. Additionally, it is unknown how many of these students would actually attend schools in the PCSSD if their school choice transfers were denied. After all, 75-80% of them enter the NLRSD in kindergarten and have never been enrolled in the PCSSD. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin attached hereto. It is entirely possible that a significant proportion would opt out of the public schools entirely. Such an outcome would not help any district's desegregation efforts. Moreover, to accept the PCSSD's invitation would require this Court to ignore the standards for constitutional and statutory construction which seek to harmonize allegedly conflicting statutes and constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Nordgren v. Burlington Northern RR. Co.;- 101 F.3d 1246, 1253 (8th Cir. 1996) While the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution does empower federal courts to override state law, that power is used sparingly, and only when the provisions of federal law and the allegedly offending state law cannot be interpreted to be consistent with one another. See, e.g., DeCanas v. Bicas, 424 U.S. 351, 357 n.5 (1976), citing, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner \u0026amp; Smith v. Ware, 414 U.S. 717, 127 (1973). In the present case, there is simply no reason for this Court to embark on such a course of action . 3 As the PCSSD notes, the Act provides that school choice transfers will not be - permitted under circumstances where it would \"conflict with a desegregation court order or a districts court-approved desegregation plan .\" AC.A. 6-18-206(9)(5). The PCSSD specifically challenges school choice transfers to the NLRSD's Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary Schools from the PCSSD's Clinton, Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan Hills Elementary Schools. However, it fails to specify why these transfers offend the provisions of its desegregation plan or the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD states only that these transfers should be prohibited because they are \"artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCSSD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance.\" PCSSD Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice, at 2. -\\ It does not explain how these transfers frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. Its suggestion that increasing the overall minority population of the PCSSD is somehow offensive to its plan is baffling . After all, the express purpose of M-to-M transfers is to effectuate the movement of black students from majority black districts to the majority white PCSSD and the movement of white students from the PCSSD to the majority black districts. In other words, they are intended to increase artificially the overall minority population of the PCSSD. To suggest that furthering this goal is now contrary to anyone's desegregation plan defies explanation. Moreover, this position is inconsistent with the PCSSD's past practice and current procedures. When the School Choice Act was initially passed in 1989, Arkansas Acts 1989 No. 609, the resident school district as well as the receiving school district both had to first agree to participate in school choice transfers. All three districts 4 in Pulaski County did so. Subsequently, the Act was amended to eliminate this - affirmative requirement and now only permits a school district to refuse to allow all school choice transfers into that district. There is no corresponding provision permitting a district to refuse to permit transfers out of that district, as the PCSSD seeks to do here. Notably, even when the program was voluntary for the PCSSD and the NLRSD was majority white, these two districts both participated in school choice transfers, specifically of black students from the NLRSD to the PCSSD and of white students from the PCSSD to the NLRSD. See Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. While both districts were majority white at that time, the NLRSD's proportion of black students was much greater than the PCSSD's. Allowing these transfers assisted the NLRSD in maintaining racial balance. The same is true today. While the Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary - Schools are majority white and have a greater proportion of white students than the schools in the PCSSD in question, the additional white students from the PCSSD will later be available to advance to the NLRSD's majority black high schools. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with the NLRSD's desegregation plan as well as the purposes of the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD, without further explanation, contends that these transfers somehow frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. There is no indication regarding why this is true. The NLRSD has already agreed not to accept students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone since that school is presently majority black and that might imperil its eligibility for M-to-M transfer payments. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. No such circumstances, however, attach to transfers from the Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan 5 Hills Elementary Schools. All three of those schools are well within the PCSSD's racial balance guidelines which provide that its elementary schools must be between 20% and 49% black. These schools are 30%, 37% and 37% black, respectively, placing all of them comfortably within the attendance guidelines set forth in the PCSSD's desegregation plan . Accordingly, there is no present threat to the PCSSD's plan compliance caused by the NLRSD's receipt of school transfers from these schools. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best convenient speculation without any supporting evidence. As discussed previously, the rules of statutory construction require that federal law, or in this case a desegregation plan , be construed consistently rather than inconsistently with state law. The PCSSD argues without explanation that the transfers in question interfere with its ability to attain unitary status even though it is clear that - they are consistent with the underlying purpose of M-to-M transfers and leave the PCSSD schools in question comfortably within their racial balance guidelines. Accordingly, there is no reason why this Court should apply the heavy hand of federal supremacy to frustrate the clear public policy of the State of Arkansas favoring more educational choices for parents and students. May 9, 2005 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 ,-- (501) 75-1122 ,--, ~, ~' I- - I I / By:. ) c? L.(.. ,~- ~-----Stepnen W. Jones ~78 Attorney for North l:.jtt District 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of May, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 7 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ( . / / AFFIDAVIT OF BOBBY J. ACKL.DJ I am Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for the North Little Rock School District (1\\TLRSD) and state as follows : 1. I was hired as the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs by the =:--lLRSD beginning the 1989-1990 school-year. In that capacity, I was responsible for student assignments and worked directly with the School Choice Act from its adoption. 2. In 1994 I became the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation in the ::--TLRSD and have served in that capacity to the present date. In that position, I have monitored student assignment inciuding school choice transfers. 3. 'foe NLRSD has participated in the State's School Choice Act since its inception as have the other two school districts in Pulaski County. It is our understanding that the 1'1LRSD is obligated to accept students for School Choice transfers unless we lack teachers or classroom space; the transfer we cause a violation of state educational standards; or it would undermine desegregation. 4. Accepting black students from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and white students from the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) is consistent with the :v1\u0026lt;\\iorityto- Minority (M-to-M) program which is a part of all three districts desegregation plans. However, in some cases, a student might not meet the qualifications to participate in the M-to-:vf program but may meet the guidelines set forth in the School Choice .Act. Therefore, NLRSD accepts black students from some schools in the LRSD and non-black students from some schools in the PCSSD under the School Choice Act. \\Ve also accept School Choice students from other sun-ounding school districts. We have done so since the inception of the School Choice Act. 5. The NLRSD is aware of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. Each year we request and receive a list of schools that are not eligible for M-to-M transfers from the PCS SD. Not only do we use this list to assign M-to-M transfer students but also use this list to govern what School Choice applications we approve. If a student does not qualify for an M-to-M transfer from a school in the PCSSD, we will not accept this student on a School Choice transfer. 6. lvfost of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ?-JLRSD from the PCSSD have never attended school in the PCSSD. Approximately 75% to 80% of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ~LRSD enter at the kindergarten level. 7. On February 23, 2005 a meeting was held between representatives from the Office of Desegregation \\1onico1ing (ODM), NLRSD, and PCS SD to discuss School Choice transfers. It was called to our attention that we accepted students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone and should not have. We were not aware that Clinton Elementary was not eligible for School Choice. Once vve became a,vare of this we immediately stopped accepting students from Clinton Elementary attendance zone. We requested a map or other information indicating the Clinton Elementary attendance zone so that this mistake would not happen again, and, we are no longer accepting students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone. 8. The PCS SD and :::--rLRSD representatives also agreed on the follov.i:ing items: a. That each district would provide and exchange information so that we can accurately calculate racial percentages in schools. b. That each distiict would provide lists of students which show what school attendance zone School Choice students are coming from. c. That we would use the student's current address to determine which school attendance zone students live in and not the last school attended. d. That both districts will adhere to the July 1 School Choice deadline. FURTHER AFFLA.l\\'T SAYETH NOT. DATE: _tJ._-_\u0026lt;j_._O_b _ State of 1\\.rkansas County of Pulaski Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of May, 2005. ~kwt=-=-=-=--AA~\u0026lt;...___~t~ Kotary Public Mv commission expUesc ~ L3 .:J.oo 1 - ~?mm====') ~: Sandra K. CoJlins !\u0026lt; -  ----------- \u0026gt;' Not:iry Public, S!it~ o! A,kunsns { ~~ ~!,~ski Co,wy :\u0026lt; , My Con:m:s~1ori Exp (', !.'lJ/2007 ~ 'J./J.\u0026gt;.l;.J.J.\u0026gt;).l./.,'.l.;;'r,'.llN.1.l '.' ; ;;,:;,.11,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2005 OFFICOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its objections to the budget proposed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for the 2005-06 school year, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. The ODM budget for 2005-06 continues to allocate costs to LRSD based solely on LRSD's student population with no recognition of the substantial reduction in the number of desegregation requirements left to be monitored with respect to LRSD. 2. Since the ODM formula for allocating costs among the three Pulaski County school districts and the State was developed, LRSD has achieved unitary status in every area except for one remaining requirement to evaluate certain academic programs. 3. The cost of any necessary monitoring of LRSD's compliance with the program evaluation requirement should not be significant since LRSD must submit to the Court \"quarterly 1 - written updates on the status of the work being performed\" with respect to those evaluations. Memorandum Opinion, June 30, 2004, p. 65 . 4. ODM proposes that LRSD pay about 48 percent of the funds required of the three Pulaski County school districts to fund ODM's operation. With only one remaining obligation to be monitored, LRSD should not be required to pay so large a share of the funds contributed by the Pulaski County school districts. 5. LRSD proposes that ODM develop a new budget tailored to the present circumstances which separates the costs of reviewing LRSD 's quarterly status reports and conducting any necessary monitoring to verify the contents of those reports. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD objects to ODM' s proposed budget for 2004-05 and proposes that ODM submit a revised budget which allocates costs to LRSD in - accordance with the actual cost of the monitoring necessary to assure LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining desegregation obligation. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BChristop;Hell ~ ~ 2 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 9th day of May, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp;WOODYARD 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner and Ivers 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 05/23/2005 16:54 --- 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTH:\u0026gt;USE 600W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 Sill. WILSON JUDGE Mr. Sam Jones UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (601) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 May23,200~ LETTER/ORDER VIA FAX MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones J A.CK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, 4:82CV00866-WRW LRSD Objections to ODM Budget Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 Please let me have your position on the LRSD's objection to the ODM proposed budget (filed May 9, 2005). It seems to me 'that LRSD bas a pretty good point, but I want your written responses, and perhaps we will have a hearing after your responses are filed. Please fax your i:esponse to me no later than 5 p.m., next Wednesday, June 1, 2005. Please file the original with the Clerk and send fax. copies to opposing counsel, the ODM, and to Judge Ray. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring, The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record D!l:?--=--- Wm. R. \\\\ ilson. Jr.  Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  urru ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://ark,du.stat,.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education May 31, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JUN -1 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier T.ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTE!{N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2005. Respectfully Submitted, s\u0026amp;~t.tillfr= General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 - - - - - --------- -------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _fl/k Scott Smi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each. month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 silla~~:~,~~'.~~!?~!ii~t!~~.avaU~bl~~~~P.J'.~922.~~~~@~~e.;:aK~~~ifedJti'tr sfate fqunqa~tQ.t:Jl/iuJ1d1r:ig JqtEY.i,Q4/0S;:$UbJe.~t tg .. p_@nQq19.~ijclJysJmeo~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 :nur:~.~t,.l.fJllMO{!NfffItOE OIIf JDIIIG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. It acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring associated with the LRSD increases any monitoring required of or appropriate for the PCSSD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to reduce its overall expenditures to a level corresponding to its reasonably anticipated reduced monitoring activities.1 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successful claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard, the PCSSD is fully aware of the difficulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSD response to PCSSD motion regarding school choice filed on May 31 , 2005. Stated another way, the PCS SD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1767","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-01/2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Little Rock School District","School districts","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Little Rock School District (LRSD) filing quarterly update, and Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1767"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, two notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, \"\"Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the NLRSD\"\"; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    ,. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU.  UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education Jan~ary 28, 2005 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 2005 OFFIC[ OF DESEGREGMlOil ;110NITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sie7~o. ~~-rk General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2005. Respectfully Submitted, tt Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 1501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 28, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Arkansas  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education February 28, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I/ ' ,') 1 - ~ 05 I . . l. RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ~3~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2005. Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2005 Based on the information availabl~ at January 31, 2005, the .ADE .calculated the State Foundation Funding for F,Y 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURi: (, '. ?ii7-j EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA:t-f,~ ~-\u0026lt; - __ ,..,,  WESTERN DIVISION  C .t,._   ' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MAR ? 2005 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFI F KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DES GREGATIO!l [,,ONITORING LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice ofFiling Quarterly Update dated March 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the second 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 Court's 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 Court's 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 \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~k CopherHcler 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 1st day of March, 2005 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 istopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua March 1, 2005 MAR 2 2005 OFFICtOF DESEGREGAT/Oi'J ;,:ONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO.1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 Page I of 18 Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. \"LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE.\" B. \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process\". which \"must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" C. \"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.\" D. \"PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants ... and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support ... \" E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness. F. \" . .. PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval . . . by December 31, 2004.\" G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . .. during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year . . . to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1. .. \" H. (ODM's responsibilities.] I. [Joshua's responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1, 2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 18 Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for thethree LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004-Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/f). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in Janua,ry with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of YearRound Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session, Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE, each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dorn and Gail Weems, both of UALR's College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 18 PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher representatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJarnette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning; Ms. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive; Dr. Williams, Year-Round Education; and Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members' names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June I. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective program's effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include 1) records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and their grade levels and positions; 2) data in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes; 3) bases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December I, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1, 2005. Page 4 of 18 Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of2004-2005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Leaming (CL) Smart/Thrive (SIT) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 18 Reading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: Number of Reading Percent African- Percent Recovery Number of Number of American Free/Reduced School Teachers Teachers Students Students Lunch Students Booker 4 55 496 53 63 Carver 2 43 496 52 53 Chicot 3 44 536 73 86 Dodd I 27 261 54 69 Franklin 2 35 387 96 94 Geyer Springs I 23 299 88 81 Gibbs 2 30 310 53 44 Meadowcliff I 24 349 78 85 Mitchell I 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek 1 31 511 60 56 Rightsell 1 25 262 100 88 Wakefield 2 29 451 78 92 Watson 1 34 456 96 93 Williams 2 36 461 52 34 Wilson 1 27 285 89 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), adm inistered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 18 Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of IO observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? RR teachers will be asked to complete \"Achievement Profiles\" (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 18 Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question I Participants Data Sources Primarv Question I . What are the effects of  All grades 1-3 students  DRA or DIBELS (pretest participation in RR on AA at 17 RR schools and in K) student achievement? other elementary  2004-05 !TBS Reading schools and Math subtests  RR student participants (posttest in grades 1-3) within above samples Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Phone of implementation of RR at the  All teachers at RR Interview 17 schools implementing it in schools  RR School Teacher 2004-05? Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools) 2. What is the level of  All RR schools  School records/archival participation in RR by AA data students relative to other ethnic groups by school? 3. What is the progress  All RR teachers  RR Achievement Profile demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are \"discontinued\" or \"not discontinued\"? 4. What are the perceptions of  All RR teachers  RR Teacher Interview RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  All RR school teachers  RR School Teacher regular first-grade teachers and Survey (disaggregated by other teachers re: RR program I st grade vs. other grades) implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of RR students  RR Parent Survey parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 8 of 18 Compass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a \"real world\" context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Percent Percent Number Number African- Free/Reduced of of American Lunch Schools Teachers Students Students Students Bale Elementary 27 319 82 88 Booker Elementary 55 605 53 63 Brady Elementary 28 318 78 80 Carver Elementarv 43 496 52 53 Chicot Elementary 44 536 73 86 Fair Park Elementarv 19 187 75 73 Forrest Park Elementary 25 361 20 14 Franklin Elementary 35 387 96 94 Fulbright Elementary 38 554 26 17 Geyer Springs Elementary . 23 299 88 81 Gibbs Elementary 30 310 53 44 Mabelvale Elementary 25 257 80 88 McDermott Elementary 26 406 62 88 Mitchell Elementary 22 156 96 92 Otter Creek Elementary 31 511 60 56 Rightsell Elementary 25 262 100 88 Rockefeller Elementary 35 453 67 66 Stephens Elementary 39 499 95 91 Wakefield Elementary 29 451 78 92 Williams Elementary 36 461 52 34 Cloverdale Middle School 59 682 82 66 Henderson Middle School 60 630 82 70 Accelerated Leaming Center 14 178 92 15 Page 9 of 18 CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8); Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL,. whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible correlates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of IO school Technology Specialists (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of JO schools (the I high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students' perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc. ). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 18 Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 18 Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Particioants Data Sources Primarv Question 1. What are the effects of  Students at 23 CL  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 participation in CL on the elementary and middle  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest achievement of AA students? schools and comparison for 3-8) schools  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math  Whole grade-level means subtests (grades 1-9 posttests) at the CL high school.  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam ( as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Steo 2 Questions 1. What are the quality,  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey (faculty nature, and level of  10 Technology Specialists meeting) implementation of CL at the (1 high school, 2 middle  Technology Specialist Phone 21 schools implementing the schools, and 7 randomly Interview program in 2004-05? selected elementary  District CL Program Coordinator schools) Phone Interview  District CL Program  Two-hour CL Laboratory Coordinator Observations (10 schools: 1 high  5 student focus groups ( 1 school, 2 middle schools, 7 high school, 1 middle randomly selected elementary school, 3 elementary schools) schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the IO observation schools 2. Whatisthelevelof  All CL schools  School records/archival data participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 3. What are the perceptions of  All CL school teachers  CL Teacher Survey teachers and Technology  10 Technology Specialists  Technology Specialist Interview Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  Parents of CL students  CL Parent Survey parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 12 of 18 Smart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (Sff) program was designed as an intervention for 8th - and 9th -grade AfricanAmerican students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total AfricanAmerican student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, SIT serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Percent Percent African- Free/Reduced Number of Number of American Lunch Middle Schools Teachers Students Students Students Cloverdale 59 682 82 86 Dunbar 58 747 61 57 Forest Heights 59 688 77 62 Henderson 60 630 82 70 Mablevale 57 634 81 75 Mann 64 873 52 37 Pulaski Heights 57 708 57 47 Southwest 55 493 94 87 srr Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the srr programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: 1. No program 11. Smart program only 111. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6th and 8th grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 18  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests; Algebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to SIT Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of SIT? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3 - 5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/ guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An SIT parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 18 Summary of Sff Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question 1. What are the effects of  All 8th and 9th grade  2003-2004 benchmark participation in the Smart Algebra I students  2004-05 ITBS Math and/or Thrive Programs on subtests; Algebra I EoC AA student achievement? Suoolemental Questions I. What is the level of  All program participants  School records/archival participation in Smart and data Thrive bv AA students? 2. What instructional  SIT teachers and students  Observations of tutoring strategies are used during the sessions tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of  All SIT Tutors  SIT Tutor Questionnaire SIT Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of  All Algebra I teachers  Algebra I Teacher Algebra I teachers regarding Questionnaire program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of  Program participants  SIT Student Questionnaire participating students  Focus Groups regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of  Parents of SIT students  SIT Parent Questionnaire parents/guardians of SIT students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 15 of 18 Year-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSD's design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The \"45-1 O\" means 45 days in a quarter, then IO days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance 1s voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Percent of Percent Students Eligible for Elementary Number of Number of African- Free/Reduced Schools Teachers Students American Lunches Cloverdale 26 360 77 89 Mablevale 25 257 80 88 Mitchell 22 156 96 92 Stephens 39 499 95 90 Woodruff 21 235 91 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: I. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 18 I  Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 18 ... Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of YRE All grades at YRE schools and other Benchmark and ITBS participation on achievement of AA elementary schools. Year Round students? Education intersession student participants within above samples. Suoo/emental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level All YRE teachers Teacher phone of implementation of intersession interview instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of Selected teachers and students Classroom observations implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of All YRE schools School records/archival participation in YRE Programs by data AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of All YRE teachers YRE teacher interview Year Round Education teachers and survey regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Page 18 of 18 I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED U.S. O!ST'\u0026lt;iCT COURT EASTERN DiSTi'\u0026lt;1CT ARKANSAS MAR 1 8 2005 UPDATE OF DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS AND J~~ES W. McC8KMACK, CLERK COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPO~ PREVENTION '.)::? c~::R.t\u0026lt; IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT March 18, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Monitor Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL , unu: ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 , (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72?03-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, _g~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ScottSmitir,13ar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31 , 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner? Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-15 l 0 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith     This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1774","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and plaintiff's notice of filing quarterly update to ODM.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-09/2004-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts","Little Rock School District","Project management","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and plaintiff's notice of filing quarterly update to ODM."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1774"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, two notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2004-05 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing quarterly update to Office of Desegregation Management and Joshua; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 ST.-\\TE C.-\\P!TOL MALL  Lfrrt.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (S01) 682--1475  http://arkedu.sta te.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education September 30, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller R ~ C ~ Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark I;; ~ f V f D 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 G~T l - 2004 Mr. Stephen W. Jones DESE ,. OFFICE.OF Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones GREuAf/ONi, 10NITDRJNG 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen: Per ail agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smit , Bar# 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - -- --- - - - - ------------~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL RECEiVED o:T 1 - 2004 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION ;,iONITORING In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2004 Based on the information available at AuQust,31, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2004 Based-ordfie-information available afAugust 31,' 2004, the ADE calculated for -FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2004 On AuQust 31, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 04/05 were as follows: LRSD - $5,916,608 NLRSD - $3,027,651 PCSSD - $5,432,019 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 04/05 at August 31, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD -$59,166,086 NLRSD - $30,276,517 PCSSD - $54,320,195 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2004 for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (501) 682-4475  http:/ / arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education September 27, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 0 c-, -l t\\:) Oo ~ c:::\u0026gt; c:::\u0026gt; -- RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas /JC.JDepartment of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of fuwternber 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sir::~, ~fL -a~~' General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier :c m -m0 m\u0026lt; C S E BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2004. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on October '2'1'~004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2004 Based on the information available at September 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2004 Based on the information available at September 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. II 11. Ii II 11 II II II II ll II II I I I I  2004-05 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Horace R Smith Monitor November 23, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas NOV 2 3 2004 ~;:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Polly Ramer Office Manager Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education November 30, 2004 Mr.M. SrunuelJones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2004 DN, OFFICE OF t,.EGREGATIGN friON/TORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I run filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier .E BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS . WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2004. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. e, IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2004 Based on the information available at October 31, 2004, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECF,\"\"\" ~~ ,eo Ci 'ti' DEC 2 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1,JONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE TO OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AND JOSHUA PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua dated December 1, 2004 states: 1. The attached document is the first 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 ofDesegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 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 Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 I / ~ 6 -~ B~ - 1/( ChristopherHelr 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 1st day of December, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 I 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 c--- ~ -,-=;;;.-:z~:;,c:;Christopherl er Attachment furnished November 30, 2004 separately December 27, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark REC-f~~v7ED 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OEC ?. ~ 2004 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Stephen W. Jones OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION;1 iONITORING I I John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Uttle Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Memben: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlille  Calvin Kina, Marianna  Randy I.anon, Beaton.me MaryJane Rebick, Uttle Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johmon A Equl Opportalty Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2004. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Sm1 , ar # 2 51 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 27, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. .1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~m1th . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2004 Based on the information available at November 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":10,"next_page":11,"prev_page":9,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":108,"total_count":544,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":313},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":35},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":14},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":3},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Cobb Court Reporting","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Sixth Division","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":439},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":396},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":378},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":354},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":329},{"value":"School integration","hits":317},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":295},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":268},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":249},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":223},{"value":"Court records","hits":206}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1},{"value":"Lester, Bobby","hits":1},{"value":"Porter, Austin, Jr.","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":544},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":537},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":535},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":472},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":537},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Missouri","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":50},{"value":"1995","hits":44},{"value":"1992","hits":41},{"value":"1996","hits":40},{"value":"1993","hits":38},{"value":"2001","hits":32},{"value":"2011","hits":31},{"value":"1997","hits":28},{"value":"2002","hits":24},{"value":"1991","hits":23},{"value":"1998","hits":22},{"value":"2012","hits":20},{"value":"2010","hits":16},{"value":"1999","hits":15},{"value":"2003","hits":15},{"value":"1989","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":12},{"value":"2004","hits":12},{"value":"2013","hits":12},{"value":"2007","hits":11},{"value":"2005","hits":10},{"value":"2006","hits":10},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":7},{"value":"1990","hits":7},{"value":"1984","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":1},{"value":"1983","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1954","max":"2017","count":564,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"filing","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}