{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1780","title":"Court findings concerning motion by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and PCSSD's Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, 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":["2004-07/2004-08"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School facilities","School enrollment","School integration","African Americans--Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court findings concerning motion by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and PCSSD's Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, 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/1780"],"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":["74 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\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for permission to utilize portable buildings on a temporary basis and to reconfigure certain buildings; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, letter inviting comment on order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua intervenors' motion regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, second letter inviting comment on order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, two orders; 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.    FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC;K SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PUIASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 NOTICE RECE\\\\JED JUL o 8 200~ Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~i\\OK UON\\iOl\\lMG 1. Ms. Ann Marshall is retiring as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her retirement begins on August 31, 2004, although she will be leaving the office before that date. 2. My staff and I wish her the best of luck in her new endeavors. 3. A nationwide search for a replacement will commence Tuesday morning, July 6, 2004. cP_ DATED THIS /). ti;_day of July, 2004. u.~,~~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. ,. RECEiVED JUL O G 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION raoNITORING 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. MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO UTILIZE PORTABLE BUILDINGS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND TO RECONFIGURE CERTAIN BUILDINGS The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. For various reasons which will be described herein, the PCSSD seeks permission to make temporary use of portable buildings at several of its campuses, and to reconfigure several buildings. All of the schools described below are and will remain within current racial balance guidelines. 2. Pine Forrest Elementary School in Maumelle has been chronically overcrowded and will remain so until the new Maumelle Middle School opens in 2005-2006. Upon its opening, the sixth grade at Pine Forrest will niove to the middle school freeing up three classrooms for K-5 students. Accordingly, the PCSSD seeks permission to utilize a two classroom portable at Pine Forrest for the 2004-2005 school year only. These portable classrooms will not be utilized to house special education students. 509825-v1 -- ------- - --- - -- ---- - 3. A similar situation is presented at Crystal Hill Elementary School just outside Maumelle. Crystal Hill is projected to be above capacity for 2004-2005. Again, the opening of the Maumelle Middle School will free up the current sixth grade classrooms at Crystal Hill. This will provide four additional classrooms in the future for K-5 students at Crystal Hill. Accordingly, for the 2004-2005 school year only, the PCSSD requests permission to utilize a two classroom portable at Crystal Hill. These portable classrooms will not be utilized to house special education students. 4. Although not dealing with portables, the District desires to reconfigure certain classrooms at North Pulaski High School that will increase the capacity of the school from 1,050 to 1,060. The principal at North Pulaski High School has concluded she needs more regular classrooms and fewer \"small rooms\" as North Pulaski High School makes the transition to mainstream special education students in regular classrooms. Further, the reconstruction reflects the abandonment of two regular classrooms and a special education classroom in the basement area of North Pulaski High School because of environmental and safety concerns. 5. North Pulaski High School desires to convert the existing Shop area into four regular classrooms including converting two rooms now used for special education into a single classroom. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, this reconfiguration will result in only a ten student increase in overall building capacity. 6. This Court previously authorized the temporary use of a portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School until such time as a new band room was completed. It does not currently appear that the new band room will be ready for the impending school year. 509825-v1 2 Accordingly, the PCSSD seeks Court permission to continue the use of the current portable building until the new band room is completed. 7. Robinson Middle School continues to experience enrollment increases. The District desires to convert the existing Shop area into an art room and one regular classroom. This would increase the recommended building capacity from 650 to 670. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the portables requested above and the reconfiguration of school facilities described herein and for all proper relief. 509825-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_:]__, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 509825-v1 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 RECEiVED IFlfLEu EA.sr~tB~ 8\\H~g co~R, ARi\u0026lt;ANSAS JUL 1?. 2004 - OFFICE OF JUI- D~n t'.'1.u\"a '5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co@s W. MccoR \\1 .  DESEGREGATION fnONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I ACK, CLf:t~K WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M TOM DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set an evidentiary hearing with respect to the pending Majority to Minority (M to M) disagreement between the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Joshua also respectfully requests that such hearing be preceded by a report to the Comi regarding the matter from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). For cause, Joshua respectfully shows the Court: 1. On or about June 7, 2004, PCS SD filed a Motion and Memorandum regarding Majority to Minority transfer concerns. 2. On June 17, 2004, LRSD filed its response. 3. The LRSD and PCSSD parties have not involved Joshua or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), on information and belief, regarding the controversy. 4. The Joshua Intervenors understand the conflict as follows: a. White students are being allowed to transfer into majority black schools in PCSSD. Their transfers into those schools result in reinforcement of racially segregated gifted and talented and academically enriched programs. For example, at College Station Elementary, white students are allowed entry thereto for the gifted and talented (GT) program. The result is that GT is overwhelmingly white, but the school is disproportionately black. LRSD white students thus have more academically enriched options than LRSD black students who are not allowed to transfer into that substantially segregated program. A second example is reflected at the high school level. Mills High also has a school within a school. The specialty school is disproportionately white. It has a separate staff as well, although the school principal is African American. LRSD African American students are denied trai;lsfer from Little Rock into the Mills specialty program, while white students are allowed transfer. b. LRSD administration promotes continuation of segregated programs, practices and activities by its refusal to allow African American students to transfer from the LRSD into strong academic settings which its makes available to white students. This is a continuation of LRSD's emphasis upon promoting educational advantage for white students while not doing likewise for African American students. 5. LRSD effectively takes the position that when a school enrollment in PCS SD reaches 50% African American, LRSD African American may not attend the PCS SD school. LRSD interprets the M to M transfer provision to require return of those African American students to LRSD who, by their presence in Fuller, Mills and College Station, cause racial imbalance. PCSSD, on the other hand, would allow such students to remain in specialty schools throughout their academic careers. The effect ofLRSD's position is to take higher achieving African American students who have op:ted for specialty programs in PCS SD from PCS SD and place 2 them back into lower level academic programs within the LRSD. LRSD thus appears to promote continuation of stronger academic programs for its white students through their assignment to such programs in PCSSD but not for its African American students. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to have the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to prepare a monitoring report regarding the situation and subsequent to such report, set the matter for evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the Court is requested to provide appropriate relief including but not limited to modifying the M to M stipulation to reflect the intended plllpose and then to allow African American students entry into the disproportionately one race \"schools within schools\" at College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle, and Mills High schools. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3 758 501-374-4187 (fax) / \\ i r ) / I, / f ~\":; ,:-::/:--.' t,,1; / :\"-:.-- - V John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8th .day of July, 2004. ,,,...\\ . / /  I : / I I : / .. , , ' ,I I ',\\ I ...._  j ,/ ~~!, (V' - if I ; '_,/_)+:. ~t4_)1 ~ .- - : 1 , , , ....__ ,., .J RECEIVED JUL 1 ?. 2004 ~Sr~/;!1.. ~ ~ tv Dis r1r,ffe: (:J r1r,c r co OFFICE OF .;, JU, r ~1rt1rr DESEGREGATION !~ONITORING [j~M\"s ~ fl 8 ,v 8~s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~- ~ \"1cc 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 0,9M-1c WESTERN DIVISION If, Cl \"1r, D- if \u0026lt;::P C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L1.,R,r CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, ET AL. DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANI\u0026gt;UM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M TOM DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors submit that the relief which they seek by their Motion herewith is authorized by the 8th Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et. al. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394. (1990) That Court created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) so that it could effectively monitor the implementation process. It is the primary monitor in this case. Neither it nor the Joshua Intervenors have been significantly involved in the subject controversy. Joshua interests is obvious. The ODM's role is to provide useful information to the parties and to the Court. An ODM report to the Court with respect to the subject issue should therefore be commissioned. Joshua's concern is twofold, i.e., educational and segregational. The educational advantage under the parties plan enures to white students. For African American students are not allowed entry into the subject programs unless they are from outside the PCSSD. But now, LRSD proposes to retain LRSD students in its schools, although they may be in more heavily one race situations, than to allow them to attend and remain in the specialty programs at College Station, Fuller and Mills. LRSD effectively proposes to require return of African American students from the far more desegregated PCSSD schools on a technical basis, i.e., the school has become majority African American. The law of the case required maximization of desegregation within a context where educational disparity is reduced rather than enhanced. A hearing on the matter is appropriate. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) / / . I I . /l /; .--; / ' I . , .' /_,- . (\\ /L,. / /;  ' -x \"Ii} t\";/ / ' / / ; lJ..,, 1J_j;; {L,-.___ ~1., ' (./ ~ /' :,'   ..,~-u:ll Le.:\u0026gt;---.... /j~:W.,Walke; - ,. I \"/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8th day of July, 2004. 2 RECEIVED JUL 1 (. 2004 - OFFICE OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 12 2004 DESEGREGATION r,lONITORING BILL WILSON JUDGE (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 -~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK Mr. Chris Heller By Fax - 501-376-2147 Mr. Sam Jones By Fax - 501-376-9442 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Guy Murphy By Fax - 501-375-1027 Mr. Mark Burnette By Fax - 501-375-1940 July 12, 2004 Mr. John Walker By Fax - 501-374-4187 Mr. Robert Pressman By Fax - 781-862-1955 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark Hagemeier By Fax - 501-682-3643 Mr. Will Bond By Fax - 501-982-9414 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Dear Counsel: I have heard only from Mr. Walker. Since the school defendants pick up the tab for the ODM employees I want to make sure that you have an opportunity to comment on my order, the proposed advertisement, Mr. Walker's letter, or anything else you deem pertinent to the ODM issue. If you want to make any comment, please do so by fax by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 13 (fax copy to other counsel, original to the clerk). Cordially, /k,{ ~  1Uv Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. ~J Original: Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk of the Court Dictated from out-of-state by Judge Wilson. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82 - cv- 00866 RECEIVED 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'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING LRSD'S AND PCSSD'S M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCSSD for its response states: JUL 2 o 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION r,iONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Joshua's motion is in actuality a response to PCSSD's motion. 2. The PCSSD sought unsuccessfully to involve the ODM in a resolution of this dispute. 3. The PCSSD has not heretofore involved Joshua believing this to be a simple dispute with the LRSD over interpretation of long-standing rules. 4. LRSD black students are allowed to exercise M-to-M transfers into the PCSSD specialty program so long as those schools are eligible for M-to-M transfers . 5. PCSSD denies any remaining allegations contained in the \"motion\" to the extent that those allegations questioned practices or motives as regards M-to-M transfers. 249234-v1 - WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the \"motion\" be denied and for all proper relief. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 19, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 249234-v1 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 Blacl\u0026lt;stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~cCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By~~ WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2001t OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION t,JONITORING DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion of the district court entered June 30, 2004. 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:~ Christoph=le~ ---- Page 1 of 2 I EB 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this Notice of Appeal has been served on the following people by depositing a copy in the United States mail on the 23rd day of July, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 Page 2 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS F' LED RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOU~sTMRi g1 I iiRIcT COURT 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 RICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 JUL 2 3 20(1', JAMES WM .By:_  cCORMACK, CLERK BILL WILSON JUDGE July 23, 2004 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 200; Mr. Chris Heller tJmf.'i?'aF Mr. John Walker By Fax - 501-376-2147 \"8'fGREGATlt, . .,,0111TOA\"mtt By Fax - 501-374-4187 Mr. Sam Jones By Fax - 501-376-9442 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Guy Murphy By Fax - 501-375-1027 Mr. Mark Burnette By Fax - 501-375-1940 Mr. Robert Pressman By Fax - 781-862-1955 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark Hagemeier By Fax - 501-682-3643 Mr. Will Bond By Fax - 501-982-9414 .l./: fJ.. { J/ 0 0 ( 6 {:; Wl(W DEP CLERK Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Dear Counsel: I assume from your comments, or lack thereof, that none of the lawyers for the districts object to the August 31 , 2004 date for Ms. Marshall 's official retirement (August 31, 2004). If this assumption is incorrect, please advise me by return fax. Cordially, I Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk of the Court 8 8 9 ,, 1  ..,; .-  .,.'._, '.....,1~, .:., .. L- ,~t - , , - - , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 6 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _____ 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 JUL 2 7 2004 omcEoF DESEGREGATION r,lONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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 same7 p1a!g e.'\" ., IT IS SO ORDERED this Lb- day of July, 2004 THiS G0CUi. i :::f~ l 1:::i:.; ..: , , ~ ,. 0, -,  ,OCKET '.\"-:i H[::t'T !,; C() ;,i,- .. ir ,,,Jc ;- Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. DEP CLERK Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU . UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (501) 6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director July 30, 2004 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 RECEIVED t\\L3 - 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION f1lONITOIHNG 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 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 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (,: (; }/c \" J/ ~ \u0026lt;...\u0026amp;6tt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier - STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair- JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Empl~yer 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 July 2004. Respectfully Submitted, sj~fil' 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 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, 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED AC3 - 2 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION :;iONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 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, 2004 Based .. on. the information available at June 30, 2004, the ADE calculated ,the Equalization Funding for) =:_)' 03/04,subject to perioqic_adjustments.   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. 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 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 1 3 2004 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: _______ D;:;;E=;:;PI/C:;--;LE=;:R;;;-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Pem1ission to Utilize Portable Buildings on a Temporary Basis and to Reconfigure Certain Buildings (Doc. No. 3879). 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 Pem1ission to Utilize Portable Buildings on a Temporary Basis and to Reconfigure Certain Buildings is GRANTED. --/t IT IS SO ORDERED this;J___;ay of August, 2004. Tia D0CUUENT ENTERED ON lJNtITffiSJTATES~DISTR.E ~ WM. R. WILSON, JR. a92 I ; EAST~fW~sA AU6 2 7 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By_ -------:D::-::,E-=:-P~CL-::-E=RK ':---- ---- --- ----~ -- \" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 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 3 o 2004 DEFENDANTS DESEGREG~:c: ~~NITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2003-2004 school year and proposed budget for the 2004-2005 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated July 30, 2004 (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 MRC's final budget for the 2003-2004 school year and proposed 2004-2005 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. 1.-,-lh..   . IT IS SO ORDERED this,;._-,_ aay of August, 2004. ':, .  THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN~ ~imi~ ~B TESDISTRICTTuoGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. ........... .. '. ' _:''.?t. ', .- e : r :.  Magnet Rel\"'l~W Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114  (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (50l) 758-5366 {Fax} .. magnet@magnetsc,hool.com {E-mail} .;. July'30, 2004 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court .... . . . ,, . Eastern District of Arkansas ,,   . ,'   : 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I -Dear Judge Wdson: On July 28, 2004, Mark Milhollen, Little Rock School District Manager of Financial Services, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the final figures for the 2003-04 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2004-05 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was forwarded to MRC members prior to taking a telephone vote on Thursday, July 29, 2004.  TheMagnet Review Committee, by fomial motion and unanimous vote of6-0, with all Committee representatives present for the telephone vote, approved the final budget for the 2003-04 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2004-2005. FINAL 2003-2004 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,689,351.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of$6,364.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,879.26 students. Actrial attendance records of3,867.15 students set the final budget figure at $24,722,797.00, and the final. budget's per pupil expenditure at $6,393.()0, or $29.00 more per pupil than originally budgeted: This final 2003-2004 document reflects actual figures and talces into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2003. 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 the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable W~ R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 30, 2004 PROPOSED 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET '  The total proposed budget for the 2()04-2005 school year is $27,964,934.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,864.00, which resuhs in a per-pupil expenditure of $7,237.00 and an increase of $844. 00 over the 2003-2004 actual. rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, :fringe benefits, insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 2 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Revtew Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and ~pproval of the 2003-2004 finalized budget in the amount of $24,722,797.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$6,393.00, as well as the proposed 2004-2005 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue fo 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. e,  Sincerely, e Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2003-2004 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 2) Proposed 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 2) cc: Office ofDesegregatior( Monitoring ~-~l~~~m!!~~~!:~1 :::::':'::::::::::::::':: :::~;~::::::::::::;!::ea::::::::::::::;:;:!::::::::::::: ;::~::J;:: ::::::::Pi!:;;;::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $79,168 $81,376 1.0 $94,335 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $163,308 $168,580 3.0 $190,292 03 Soecialists 3.4 $145,369 $130,614 3.4 $135,869 04 Counselors 3.0 $152,084 $156,281 3.0 $172,922 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $54,599 $56,124~ - 1.0 $61 ,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music o.o $0  $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational .. 2.6 $149,656 $142,116 2.6 $152,554 10 Special Education 2.0 $71,477 $87,607 2.0 $85,872 11 Gifted  0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2,173,375 $2,229,338 49.8 $2,444,329 13 Substitutes 0.0 $60,000 $60,526 0.0 $64,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.8 $31049,035 $3,112562 65.8 $3,401,755 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries . 5.0 $123,104 $117 813 5.0 $135,216 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,243 $35,211 1.0 $40,000 17 Custodians . 6.0 $89,629 $80 038 6.0 $110,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,585 $9,775 0.2 $10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $34,305 $34,869 1.0 $25,000 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $35,745 $50,412 2.4 $78,162 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $869,280 $845,623 ~ : $1,108,720 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,195,891 $1,173,741 15.6 $1,508,016 TOTAL (10-20)  , :/J $4,244,926 $4,286,303 ~if $4,909,771 URCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $164,500 $204,925 ~ : $197,000 SERVIGES _.23_,T_r_av_e_l _______~ ...:.: .,. .~...:.: ,'.,.:.,. . .:. .. ____$4 _,_ 5__ 00--+-___$_ 6 ,_ 1_. .,.5_3- toieJ.o,..o:.: o .'o.:.'o. \u0026lt;.\u0026lt;. .X. .:,. ..:, ,.,;:i ,------$_2, 0__.. ,..00--t (30) _.24_,M_a_in_t_en_a_n_ce_A_g1r_ee_m_e_n_ts _. _.:..:.. . :.. . .~.:.. ... . .:.:.c.  .. . _____$ 0--+-_____$ 0.:.. .:. ,.:-::.. ... :~.... .:.., :,:; i,------$0--t 25 Other ~ : $62,782 $51,666 ~ j $60,735 TOTAL (30) ~ : $231,782 $262,745 ~ : $259,735 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ j $0 $0 ~ : $0 SUPPLIES t--27_.R-teg-u~la-r -C-la-ss-r-oo-m----:'.~,.:,.~.o,..\"\".,\",:.:+---$-1-8-3,--6-16--+---$,-1_9_9_,4-.,5:.,'.,5.::\"-\"-.t,-\u0026lt;.\"\"~:'\":'1: ---$,-1-2-9,-6-00--t (40) 28 Media ~ : $11,675 $3,613 ~K $6,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other $6,638 $5,943 ~ : $6,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $201,929 $209,011 ~ : $141,600 30 Equipment ~ ' $206,526 $208,208 ~ : $26,000 31 Building Repair, etc. -:, $0 $0 ~ $0 32 Other TOTAL(50)     \\ $206,526 $208,208 ~ ' $26,000 33 Dues and Fees ~ ' $600 $1,516 ~ j $3,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ ' $600 $1 ,516 ~ j $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $640,837 $681,480 ~ : $430,335 TOTAL (10-60) 81 .4 $4,885,763 $4,967,784 81.4 $5,340,106 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $416,479 $436,139 ~ j $469,490 :::::,:,:::~AANttto.tA.L.::t :::::n:::: .mmt: :t:,:,:::,::$$130.ta.42 ::uti::$$;@3ls2.3': uxiboot: ,:,,,,,:,,::nJsi\u0026gt;~'s96 : u .. ~ :~ ~~+:y:::::n:Y:::H ::t~r.~~e~H\\ ':::t~~~i:::r.: ::::w.~~~:Ht -.ii~:::ttt::::nr:t::::n::cu::=: 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stioends $1,300 $730 OtherObiects . $0 $0 $CL - Indirect Costs $361 ,240 $366,129 $411,529 Vocational $14,117 $14,287 $14,287 Athletics $31 ,413 $46,482 $35,217 Gifted Proarams $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $7,081 $7,167 $7,122 Readino $111 $112 $111 Science $0 $0 $0 'Enolish $332 $336 $334 Soecial Education $885 $896 $890 xxxxxx Total Line Items $416,479 $436,139 $469,490 ~,jJp!f(;o~/t)H\\U:HU: 'HU)2()~~f :i ,::::)~!~K\u0026gt;if :::= r::~~$.iH\\i 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. . 858.44 866.17 860.00 Total Costs $5,302,242 $5,403,923 $5,809,596 :e.~UPllP~/\\):::!:r::::: \\?{::) $.$Wft :n=Ytii?$$~~i: ....... ::::r$$i7.~ 1  ~~!-~!lf~~~~P~),,,;,;,;,;,;,:,;,;,;,:.;,:: ~~~:.:.. :.:.:.:~;=~:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:,::. ~;;:. ,.,:'~;::;d''.:=: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $90,516 $93,000 1.0 $105,050 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 4.0 $268,928 $275,163 4.0 $298,904 03 Specialists 9.8 $432,457 $461,002 9.8 $486,691 04 Counselors 4.0 .$209,72.1 $21a,509 4.0 $226,317 05 Media Scee. 1.0 $44,084 $45,993 1.0 $50,499 06 Art-PerfJProd. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreian Lana; 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $248,272 $249,703 5.0 $275,310 10 Special Education  1.0 $53,213 $54,700 1.0 $60,020 11 Gifted 0.0 .  $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 . $2,443,816 $2,610,349 55.1 $3,043,074 13 Substitutes. 0.0 $65,000 $58,910 0.0 $63,000 14 Other-Kinderaarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SA~Y 78.4 $3,856,006 $4,067,328 80.9 $4,608,865 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $195,722 $203,299 6.0 $221,944 . STAFF 16 Nurses . 1.0 $39,818 .$40,963 1.0 $45,878 17 Custodians 9.5 $167,781 $172,961 9.5 $198,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,574 $9,764 0.2 $10,905 19 Paraprofessionals~Other 5.0 $134,716 $138,563 5.0 $186,167 20 Other-Aides 3.0 $55,762 $81 ,545 3.0 $87,505 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1,198,108 $1,119,797 ~ i $1,531,743 TOTAL SUPPQRT SALARY 24.7 $1,801,481 $1,766,892 24.7 $2,282,142 TOTAl:'(10:-20) , ~ ! $5,657,487 $5,834,220 ~ \\ $6,891,007 PURCHASED ~2~2:;...+,;U~ti~liti~e~s _______.~ ~~'::=~:=::~=\\~~\u0026gt;:~ ___$ ~1~7~3,~6~00c+---~$~17~4~,9~9~8+:'~:':\"~~::/=~::~'::~: __~ $1~6~8~,o~oo-=-i SERVICES 23 Travel ;;,... ~ ; , $19,000 $29,179 ~ ( $24,800 (30) 24 Maintenance Adreements .    : : $0 $0 ~  $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ ! $59,242 $105,810~\\ $94,300 TOTAL (30) 26 Princioal's ()(lice 27 Reaular Classl oom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL (40) 30 Eauioment 31 Buildina Reoair; :etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees  34 Other Xioo( $251,842 $309,987 ~   $281,100 . ~ : $0 $0~ $0 ~ : $196,900 . $137,516 ~  $180,145 ~  $12,700 $14,680 ~  $13,400 ~ j $9,080 $4,842 ~  $5,000 #xi9oijf $218,680 $151,038 ~ n $198,545 ~ !: $22,000 $30,901 ~  $23,000 ~  $0 $0~ $0 ~ !: $0 $0 . $0 ~ib.ii( $22,000 $30,901 ~  $23,000 ~ : $1,300 $2,998~/: $2,500 TOTAL(60) ~ j $1,300 $2,998 ~ i $2,500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ : $493,822 $500,925 ~ j $511,145 TOTAL(10-60) 103.1 $6,151,309 $6,335,145 105.6 $7,402,152 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ j $554,987 $547,661 ~ : $621 ,488 ::r\u0026gt;GAANtt1cttAtu::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ~ i =uuitito$;Z9Si :::r:::$s~csa2;so~i: ~  :::::$Oi2l;6.4o:: - , : --- - - - t~'ffiim'Qi$.T:':::::::':''''''''''' ::::ffiAA;~~:'::: :':':':''Mt~~r:':''''' .':'':~rnpq~::::: ~~w.= u.=..u. . . .u. .t\\ 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends  $5,500 $9,775 $5,500 Other Ob1ects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $478 099 $474,438 $539,772 Vocational $18\\683 $18,513 $.18;513 Athletics $41 :576 $33,906 $46,609 Gifted Proarams :;: $0 $0 $0 Plant Services ,: $9,372 $9,288 $9,342 Readini:i $146 $145 $146 Science .  $0 $0 $0 English $439 $435 $438 Special Education \" $1,172 . $1,161 $1,168 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $554,987 $547,661 $621,488  . P4tf~~i_eq.~-++=:::=:=:::=:::n:i N:=:~Q~:t\u0026gt; =:=:=:2.3;o4=::::_ . H:=~.ti95:?c 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 1,136.14 1,122.40 1,128.00 Total Costs ;'.' .$6;706;295 $6,882,806 $8,023,640  P'4it'Pumf ~ijs(=U\\\\.'\\/'/:/ :/t\".''H$$;1Mllf1 .'\".'.\\?i$6J~: ,:::::::::=_:_:':i$.7k'\"J1:J: -~~~!F~!t~~~{~~~!:!:!!!!!~!:!!!!:!!:!:!!!!: :::.i~:::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::=::::::::::: :::~;:j::: ::::::::~o::~1:1:::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 82,856 $ 85,136 1.0 $ 94,975 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 62,345 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 321 ;524 $ 330,958 7.0 $ 363,816 04 Counselors 2.0 $ .. 100,459 $ 105,298 2.0 $ 116,229 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 36,587 $ 37,638 1.0 $ 42,588 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 114,504 $ 117,741 3.0 $ 132,463 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 gn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 107,932 $ 110,993 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 48,389 $ 49,737 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,425,005 $ 1,455,417 30.6 $ 1,513,308 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 50,000 $ 40,386 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 6.0 $ . 254,782 $ 243,325 6.0 $ 238,380 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2,604,383 $2,640,714 54.6 $2,793,601 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 45,540 $ 40,619 2.0 $ 48,344 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50,785 $ 42,463 1.0 $ 46,709 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 67,969 $ .. 69,113 4.0 $ 81,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $ 110,895 $ 105,036 6.0 $ 127,773 21 Frinae Benefits(20l $ 779,619 $ 719,933 $ 910,605 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1,064,393 $986,939 13.2 $1,225,349 TOTAL (10-20) ~\\ $3,668,776 $3,627,653 ~ j $4,018,950 70,800 $ 72,082 7,500 $ 2,763 $0 $0 .$ . 73,000 $ 5,000 $0  URCHASED 22 Utilities ~ ' $ ~ : SERVICES 23 Travel ~ j $ ~i( 1----+-----------------------------------t  (30) 1--24-+M_a_in_t_en_a_n_ce_A=-gr_e_em_e_n_ts _- -H::;.;~,'.\".'..';.;\"''.';,;i,;'a;.':/+--,----------t--,---------+,.:,-;;;~\".;'.);,;;,';,:,';;,;,,\",::; t~------,-1 25 Other ~ : $ 21,565 $ 30,456 ~ : $ 31,440 TOTAL (301 ~ : $99,865 $105,302 ~ : $109,440 MATERIALS, t,....;;.26--+-P-'-ri...;n\"'-'ci.L.pa;;...l'..;..s...;O_ffi...;1c...;.e_ ____. ...., ...,  ..~ . \u0026gt;. , .__ ___ __:$_0-+-____$ .._..0.. ..-. ,+... -..~ ,_. .: . ,_____$. .. 0. --1 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom ~ : $ 108,429 $ 119,831 ~ : $ 90,381 (40) 28 Media ~ : $ 9,500 $ 9,065 ~ : $ 9,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ i $ 4,180 $ . 2,920 ~ : $ 3,100 TOTALC40l ~ : $122,109 $131,816 ~ : $102,981 30 Eauipment 22,244 $ 9,269 ~ : $ 12,000 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 32 Other ~ : $0 $0 ~ $0 TOTAL (50) ~: $22,244 $9,269 ~ : $12,000 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $ 500 $ 572 ~ : $ 2,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ : $500 $572 ~ : $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $244,718 $246,959 ~: $226,921 TOTAL (10-60) 67.8 $3,913,494 $3,874,612 67.8 $4,245,871 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~' $280,118 $267,258 ~  $308,060 t~~~m:~$~ftti::::::r:tn ::t:#.f~ij:::::: ::::::::J~ij~~~:::::u :11:::,tfi.)p~~J::1 ~ij~~ijfHH:i\\:HHH/i\\'/H\\/lH. 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends .$12,500 $4,409 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $261 ,369 $256,722 $291,898 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0  Gifted Programs $165 $159 $163 Plant Services $5,t24 $5,026 $5,052 Reading $80 $79 $79 Science $0 $0 $0 English $240 $236 $237 Special Education $640 $628 $631 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $280,118 $267,258 $308,060 d~ijpjft~it::::::::::::rn::::::::: ;:::\\.P.~:!U::! :::::::::~@~~:::::::: :J\\jp@@!'i!i1!! 3rdQtr. ADMorProj. 621 .11 607.34 610.00 Total Costs $4,193,612 $4,141,870 $4;553,930 p~ijijp1f q(iijJ:::1::1::n:11i1:::::1::: n:::::1:::::::::$$.;r~:: ::::::::::::::::::$~;~~: :::::::::::::::::1$t.#i~:: =~~~~~~!ffll.~tqMfflt~l::rn:::nn:::::::::::: ::i;~_: ::::::::;::: ::: ::::;:~: 1 ::: ::.~. : ::::~a::~ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81 ,356 $ 83,636 1.0 $ 93,186 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 1.0 $ 60,845 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Soecialists 8.0 $ 359,784 $ 374,877 8.0 $ 415,685 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 89,580 $ 94,974 2.0 $ 106,208 05 Media$oec. .1.5 $ 72,104 $ 74,1tQ 1.5 $ 81,290 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0  $0 $0 0.0 $0 =::.~t 08 Foreian Lana.- 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 40,763 $ 41 ,935 1.0 $ 47,284 11 13ifted 1.4 $ 67,507 $ 69,629 1.4 $ 77,258 12 Classroom. 2U $ 868,840 $ 875,063 21 .3 $ 928,539 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 35,000 $ 36,279 0.0 $ 38,0.00 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 228,689 $ 237,985 5.0 $ 265,011 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.2 $1,904,467 $1,952,572 42.2 $2,122,798 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 77,542 $ 79, 170 3.0 $ 88,824 STAFF . 16 Nurses 1.0 $ . 33,693 $ 34,661 1.0 $ 38,127 17 Custodians . 4.0 $ 60A84 $ 62,828 4.0 $ 76,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 95,726 $ 74,925 4.4 $ 86,934 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $ 596,247 $ 576,134 ~ . $ 716,338 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 $873,277 $837,493 12.6 $1 ,017,141 TOTAL (10-20) .  .. ': $2,777,745 . $2,790,065 ~  $3,139,939  PURCHASED 22 Utilities .,.,.,.,.,.,, $ 52,200 $ 54,308 ~ : $ 58,500 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $ ' 5,000 $ 10,783 ~  $ 5,000 ' -... ,\"J (30) 24 Maintenance AQreements $0 $0 ~  $0 25 Other 24,475 $ 17,691 ~  $ 27,210 TOTAL (30) 81 ,675 $ 82,782 ~  $ 90;110 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $0 $0 ~  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~  $ 64,500 $ 86,619 ~  $ 64,500 (40) 28 Media 9;000 $ 8,070 ~  $ 9,000 29 Other 8,033 $ 3,560 ~  $ 4,000 TOTAL (40) 81 ,533 $ 98,249 ~  $ 77,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment 10,000 $ 1,648 ~  $ 10,000 OUTLAY   31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (50) ~ : $ 10,000 $ 1,648 ~  $ 10,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~  $ 1,541 $ 639 ~  $ 1,541 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ . $ 1,541 $ 639 ~ j $ 1,541 TOTAL (30-60) ~ j $174,749 $183,318 ~  $179,751 TOTAL (10-60) 54.8 $2,952,494 $2,973,384 54.8 $3,319,690 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) \" ~  $223,415 $223,403 ~  $253,368 .. I ,'  u,wn~\"f (i~~ij:;;.)/)/HHL \u0026gt;J~~~ft \u0026lt; :U?nlA~~fHH :J:ffl'qp~~~HH Ccri:y~t .U.' u::: .: . : .. U L:.'.C \u0026gt; U 2003--04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends $10,000 $5,313 $9,057 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $208,431 $213,007 $239,261 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 ,Gifted Programs i $131  $132 $133 PlantServices  $4,086 $4,170 $4,141 Reading $64 $65 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 English $192 $195 $194 Soecial Education $511  $521 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total L:ine Items ,, $22a,415 $223,403 $253,368 ~fl\u0026gt;:i#Wti.:\u0026gt;jij/ ::YHHH\\:::. ::::@QW::n :nn::~@~if =::: :::)::~Qii.ii~t::i: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 495.31 503.92 500.00 Total Costs $3;175,908 $3,196,786 $3,573,058 ~t~.-.nWPos.tH/'it::n:::t:C' ::t'i'i::C/$.tM,t  .:t/UH!f$$l3M. t::::=t,::::$M4$:' : I ~~m~~~;~~Jl~~~~~~~!:~~;;;:;:;;;:::::;;;;;:;;';: :,::~~:.,:, ,,,:,:,:~::~:,:,:,:, :.:,:,:,:,:=~,:,:,:,:,:, :,:i'r:.,,:: (:::~4::e.\u0026lt;i:,;,;,;  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 79,528 $ 81 ,736 1.0 $ 93,172 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 268,588 $ 251,436 6.8 $ 282,959 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 34,000 $ 46,422 1.0 $ 52,310 05 Media Spec. .1.0 $ 54,599 $ 56, 1~- 1.0 $ 61,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Soecial Education 2.0 $ 73,754 $ 77,320 2.0 $ 87,536 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 48,389 $ 49,737 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 722,635 $ 724,307 16.5 $ 797,878 f3 Substitutes 0.0 $ 20,000 $ 26,659 0.0 $  28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 2.0 $ 91,551 $ 94,140 2.0 $ 104,560 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $:1,393,043 $1,407,882 31.3 $1,562,559 SUPPORT '15 Secretaries . 1.4 $ 32,952 $ 32,681 1.4 $ . 36,665 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 39,818 $ 40,963 1.0 $ 46,288 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 52,728 $ 51,513 3.0 $ 65,000 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ .. 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 64,585 $ 68,402 3.2 $ 77,786 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $ 435,295 $ 411,660 ~ : $ 528,767 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 $634,964 $614,995 8.7 $765,423 TOTAL (10-20) ~ :  $2,028,007 $2,022,877 ~ : $2,327,983 PURCHASED 22 Utilities . ~ : $ 26,300 $ 31,972 ~ : $ 33,800 SERVICES ....2 _3_T_ra-v_e_l -..- -------)900()00(X..,.:'::\".. :\".: . .':.' \":\"::' +-'-$---3-'-.o-oo--t--'$---1\"\"\"'2.'-99_9_XlOO.O.:.\" \"O':':'\":O\"''.,. \u0026lt;:.,. : X.,.::\" :'\" ..$.. __3. .. ., -00-0'---I (30) ' 1--24-+M_a_i_nt_e_na_n_c_e_A.0 ..1. r_e_em_en_ts _. ....,.'. ..:.~.  ..,'. .,.::.. .::.:. :. ______$ '-0-+-____. .._$0'. :-:. +.:. . ~.. ,..:...,,.:..: .: . ____ _,_$0- . \u0026amp;t-____ ._.:;;;25\"-+0th\"-=e.;;.;r_--==~=-~--+~;;;,;:.,:;.:;;.:;,;:;;:.:~$--,,,.;2~7c-'c,4~5;..;1+$;.__~1\"'\"4,'-::7~66';:;;;,-:: .+,;~:. :F.,!,.':;: ;; t...::$;.__~2~9,\"'\"14..;..;0:::...i W- TOTAL (30) ~ : $56,751 $59,736 ~ : $65,940 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~ : $0 $0 ~ j $0 SUPPLIES i--27-+R-teg_u. l.a.. -r -C-la-ss-r-oo_m_ ____ ..,.,.~,,_,.,.,.,.,.,+--$---1o -1-,0\"\"\"'1'-6-+-$---9-1,-4---25--+-.io..o.\". '.\":o''.o,.c:\"x\"x:x\"\"\"''\"::. :, .-$---5-0,-78-'-4---4 (40) 28 Media : .. \u0026gt;. $ 3,000 $ 3,162 ~ : $ 1,795 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ : $ 2,185 $ 1,786 ~ : $ 2,000 TOTAL (40) 30 Eouipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other ~ : $ 106,201 $ 96,373 ~  $ 54,579 $ 137,899 $ 19,262 ~; $ 136,519 $0 $0 ~ : $0 ~ ; $0 $0 ~ : $0 ~ ; $ 137,899 $ 19,262 ~ $ 136,519 ~ : $ 500 $ 280 ~ : $ 500 .. . : . , $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (60) ~ j $ 500 $ 280 ~ : $ 500 TOTAL(30-60) ~ : $301 ,351 $175,651 ~ : $257,538 TOTAL (10-60) 40.0 $2,329,359 $2,198,528 40.0 $2,585,521 TOTAL LINE ITEMS-(SECOND PAGE) ~ : $132,980 $136,175 ~ : $151 ,496 \\((:'H~AANt'ft(ttAti:t\\H( ~ : \u0026lt;Y/$.tAitJag: / '))$Z)~;w2:= ~ : ')i:)$.Z.73!'i0.16 ' - . f : ~ J~mlCij~~:+::::u::::ut:: HA~~~::::: n:n::::A~~1:nn:: ::tW4P~~)H ~-w~Vif Ui)H{(?H?Y\u0026gt; 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stioends $1,000 $1,842 $1,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $128,898 $131,202 $147,385 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $81 $81 $82 Plant Services $2,527 $2,568 $2,551 Reading $39 $40 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $118 $120 $120 Soecial Education $316 $321 $319 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $132,980 $136,175 $151,496 11ef P:~mi:ci;,$'i:H::::i1  1:::;::::::\u0026gt;::: HH:::~~~4itf! n::::2~;ij1J:t1  :: 1t~Q~::j::: 3rd Qtr. ADM orProi. 306.31 310.39 308.00 Total Costs $2,462,339 $2,334,702 $2,737,016 P!EttP.-ifu11eo$.t/ ::::t]t/1::+ :r:1:;::J$.8iQ~~r ,/jn,:t::nt:r;s~: H/!trsa~i~ej: . ;w1~,-~1i1~mmm0m~i!1111iiiii!ii1!!1!!!:!!i! ::::i:w::: ::::1::::::1:::::: ::1:::::::::::::::::1:J:l ::::r~l:i :::;::::::::~::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 84,256 $ 84,256 1.0 $ 93,576 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 62,345 $ 64,085 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 251,669 $ 258,689 5.0 $ 283,809 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 60,481 $ 66,266 1.4 $ 76,124 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 47,612 $ 48,910- 1.0 $ 54,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0  $0 08 Foreian Lana. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 45,694 $ 46,973 1.5 $ 54,633 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 104,001 $ 93,326 2.0 $ 108,026 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 875,968 $ 875,571 21 .0 $ 1,010,387 13 Substitutes  0.0 $ 35,000 $ 28,223 0.0 $ . 30;000  14 Other-Kinderaarten 3.0 $ 134,835 $  134,089 3.0 $ 1'53,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.9 $1,701 ,860 $1,700,388 36.9  $1,934,678 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 66,531 $ . s70,173 3.0 $ 77,566 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 52,742 $ ~.199 1.0 $ 60,086 17 Custodians 3.5 $ 55,801 $ 51,057 3.5 $ 68,278 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,585 $ .. 9,775 0.2 $ 10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 59,991 $ 46,384 4.8 $ 55,023 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $ 530,698 $ 448,173 ~ : $ 650,230 TOTAL SUPPORT.SALARY 12.5 $775,348 $679,761 12.5 $922,100 TOTAL(10-20) ~  $2,477,208 $2,380,149 ~ : $2,856,777 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $ 50,200 $ 58,942 ~ : $ 60,000 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ . $ 3,000 $ 5,446 ~  $ 3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements , 25 Other $ 19,479 $ 16,584 ~ : $ 24,527 TOTAL (30) ~  $ 72,679 $ 80,972 ~  $ 87,527 MATERIALS, 6 ir,cipal's Office $0 $0 ~  $0 SUPPLIES Regul r Cl ss oom ~  $ 76,100 $ 90,914 ~ : $ 73,500 (40) 8 ei $ 4,600 $ 4,532 ~ : $ 7,100 0 her $ 3,527 $ 3,099 ~ : $ 3,200 o-AI (40) $ 84,227 $ 98,545 ~ : $ 83,800 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $ 4,300 $ 4,260 ~ : $ 4,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) ~ $ 4,300 $ 4;260 ~  $ 4,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1,500 $ 670 ~  $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other ~ : $0 , $0~ $0 TOTAL (60) 1,500 $ 670 ~  $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~  $162,106 $184,447 #ioot~iW $111,121 TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) 48.4 $2,639,914 $2,564,596 49.4 $3,033,904 $209,041 $198,114 \u0026gt;OOOOOOCX $233,789 UM'Jt~m=Costi$?iH:t:::\u0026gt;ii:i. i:::~r.6ririjeti:H::: :::,:::::::A~uar::::::=:i =:::P.r.osfosediii= Wiillains=?\\(:/(:::)/YY/ 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends $10,000 $360 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $194,393 $193,144 $219,163 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $123 $120 $122 Plant Services $3,811 $3,781 $3,793 Reading $60 $59 $59 Science $0 $0 $0 English $179 $177 $178 Special Education $476 $473 $474 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $209,041 $198,114 $233,789 ~et~iin1I:to$.f ::=:::::=,f ::i::=::,::. ::::n:20~a+o4::::n,: ===:n,:23~t:= ::,:::~C10+.o.S'::::i: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 461.95  456.93 458.00 Total Costs $2,848,955 $2,762,710 $3,267,693 P.~f ~u\u0026amp;1ttos.ti(\\i::r=t:nt::: :::::,::::::::) $$A~t: ::::=::::::::$U~it$i :::::::::,:::::::$\"M3$i CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $497,680 $509,140 6.0 $574,294 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $617,771 $635,997 10.0 $700,207 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 03 Specialists 40.0 $1 ,779,390 . $1,807,576 40.0 $1,968,829 Counselors 13.4 $646,324 $687,751 13.4 $750,109 Media Soec. 6.5 $309,584 $318,91tt 6.5 $351,986 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $114,504 $117,741 3.0 $132,463 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreian Lana. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 7.6 $397,928 $391,819 7.6 $427,864 Special Education .9.5 $392,832 $419,528 9.5 $457,289 Gifted 5.4 $268,286 $262,429 5.4 $294,406 Classroom 190.8 $8,509,638 $8,770,044 194.3 $9,737,515 Substitutes 0.0 $265,000 $250,982 0.0 $268,000 Other-Kinderaarten 16.0 $709,857 $709,538 16.0 $761,295 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.2 $14,508,795 $14,881,446 311 .7 $16,424,256 15 Secretaries 20.4 $541,391 $543,754 20.4 $608,558 16 Nurses 6.0 $251 ,099 $248,460 6.0 $277,088 17 Custodians 30.0 $494,391 $487,510 30.0 .$598,278 18 Information Services 1.0 $57,500 $58,641 1.0 $65,494 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $169,021 $173,432 6.0 . $211,167 20 Other-Aides 23.8 $422,705 $426,705 23.8 $513,183 21 Frinae Benefits(20) ~  $4,409,247 $4,121,319 ~ : $5,446,402 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.1 $6,345,354 $6,059,821 87.2 $7,720,170 TOTAL (10-20) x#\u0026gt;.\u0026amp;ic~k $20,854,149 $20,941,267 ~ : $24,144,426 22 Utilities 537,600 $ 597,227 ~ : $ 590,300 23 Travel 42,000 $ 67,324 ~ : $ 42,800 24 Maintenance Aareements $0 $0 ~ : $0 25 Other 214,994 $ 236,974 ~ .. $ 267,352 TOTAL (30) 794,594 $ 901 ,524 ~  $ 900,452 26 Principal's Office $0 $0 ~ .. $0 27 Reaular Classroom 730,561 $ 725,761 ~ , $ 588,910 28 Media 50,475 $ 43,122 ~ : $ 46,795 29 Other 33,643 $ 22,150 ~  $ 23,300 TOTAL (40) 814,679 $ 791,032 ~  $ 659,005 30 Equipment 402,970 $ 273,549 ~ : $ 211,819 31 Buildina Repair, etc. $0 $0 ~  $0 32 Other $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (50) 402,970 $ 273,549 ~  $ 211,819 33 Dues and Fees 5,941 $ 6,675 ~  $ 11,541 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~  $5,941 $ 6,675 ~ j $ 11,541 TOTAL (30-60) ~ : $2,018,184 $ 1,972,781 ~ j $ 1,782,817 TOTAL (10-60) 395.3 $22,872,332 $ 22,914,048 398.8 $ 25,927,243 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~  $1,817,019 $ 1,808,749 ~ j $ 2,037,691 - ' : MagnetBudget0203MAGBK05 w,~,rnc.ro:c~f r,:::,::m:m::::::: ::::u\u0026gt;,~c;,0.Q~~n t::n:::MtwR+:n:: un~r:q~~~n::: $~~~JV1//?::/U/HHHHH 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 Stipends .. $40,300 $22,428 $35,557 Other Obiects $0 $0 ,_ - $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,632,430 $1,634,641 $1 ,849,008 Vocational $32,800 $32,800 $32,800 Athletics $72,989 $80,388 $81 ,826 Gifted Proarams $500 $492 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 EnQlish $1 ,500 $1 ,500 $1 ,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx JOO()()()( Total Line Items $1,817,019 $1 ,808,749 $2,037,691 . p~~Jiijii,1J:(:'t)si::::r:1:H1  11 ::c::: , H::12!M)J;tj4'1: :n:~Q0.$04.:HH: 1:200.4~5. ....... . 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,879.26 3,867.15 3,864.00 Total Costs 24,689,351.09 24,722,797.01 27,964,933.81 Per:Fci~tin~:uH:t::ntH n+rn:t$;jQ nn::n:,~~3 H1=HH\u0026gt;H$t;iat  Fi)~i~a$.ijij\u0026amp;:~n:\u0026lt;n: n:P.~oD,Q~~ ...... H:::::MJijH =1i\u0026gt;,jiqp~~~ $~rn~N//\\/HH/U//U 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 State of Arkansas $12,344,676 $12,361 ,345 $13,982,467 LRSD $7,806,773 $7,819,929 $8,842,512 PCSSD $2,960,253 $3,062,183 $3,352,996 NLRSD $1,577,650 $1 ,479,340 $1,786,959 Total Costs $24,689,351 $24,722,797 $27,964,934 MagnetBudgeto203MAGBK05 . ' CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $79,168 $81,376 1.0 $94,335 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $163,308 $168,580 3.0 $190,292 03 Specialists 3.4 $145,369 $130,614 3.4 $135,869 04 Counselors 3.0 $152,084 $156,281 3.0 $172,922 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $54,599 $56,124 1.0 $61,583 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreian Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $149,656 $142,116 2.6 $152,554 10 Special Education 2.0 $71,477 $87,607 2.0 $85,872 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2,173,375 $2,229,338 49,8 $2,444,329 13 Substitutes 0.0 $60,000 $60,526 0.0 $64,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.8 $3,049,035 $3,112,562 65.8 $3,401,755 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries , 5.0 $123,104 $117,813 5.0 $135,216 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,243 $35,211 1.0 $40,000 17 Custodians 6.0 $89,629 $80,038 6.0 $110,000 18 lnfom,ation Services 0.2 $9,585 $9,775 0.2 $10,918 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $34,305 $34,869 1.0 $25,000 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $35,745 $50,412 2.4 $78,162 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $869,280 $845,623 ~  $1,108,720 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,195,891 $1,173,741 15.6 $1,508,016 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ; $4,244,926 $4,286,303 ~  $4,909,771 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .~ : $164,500 $204,925  $197,000 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $4,500 $6,153 ,,,,;.:-:: : :: :- ~ ; $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements :~  $0 $0 ~  $0 25 Other .~ : $62,782 $51,666 ~  $60,735 TOTAL (30) ~ : $231,782 $262,745 ~  $259,735 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ~  $0 $0  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom ~ $183,616 $199,455 ~ . $129,600 (40) 28 Media ~  $11 ,675 $3,613  $6,000 29 Other ~  $6,638 $5,943 ~ : $6,000 TOTAL (40) ~  $201,929 $209,011 -. -: -:- :-:. :- : -:-:-: ~ ; $141 ,600 CAPITAL 30 Eauipment ~  $206,526 $208,208 ~  $26,000 OUTLAY 31 Buildina Repair, etc. ~ ; $0 $0 ~  $0 (50) 32 Other ~  $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL(50) ~  $206,526 $208,208 ~  $26,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $600 $1,516 ~  $3,000 (60) 34 Other ..##= $0 $0 ~  $0 TOTAL (60) .~ $600 $1,516 ~  $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) .~ : $640,837 $681,480 ~  $430,335 TOTAL (10-60) 81.4 $4,885,763 $4,967,784 81.4 $5,340,106 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $416,479 $436,139 ~  $469,490  :=:GMNPt:O.tAL:= H'   ib.txib.txit 4$.031i2Wi4t JHJ:=$S.4\u0026lt;l3(9Z3 ib.txib.td: ?\\ ) $$)80!t$9ij) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED ~....,r~.;',;) 1 -- 2004 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION\\1 10MITORIMG 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 August 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-422 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 31, 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 72203-151 O 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 trSm~:h- 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 August 31, 2004 Based on the information available at July 31, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding fo_r FY 03/04; 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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1781","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum opinion.","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":["2004-06-30"],"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 integration","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School boards","Arkansas. State Board of Education","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum opinion."],"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/1781"],"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":["54 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\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    ,072A =tev.Ml2) - . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875' Filed 06/30/2004 Page 1 of 74  . . . .:..itJJdre~ ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN \"O . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \" 20 04 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ~~MES W. McCUKMr1CK, CLERK LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNlY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I'\u0026lt;.A THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 .. ,_ . ------ DEPCLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I. Warning to the General Reader The general reader, if any there be, should realize that educators, like lawyers, have developed their own language. To the extent that time, patience, and skill would permit, I have tried to Gamerize~ this Memor::andwn Opinion. I have fallen short. but hope the effort will be of some help. II. Background On September 13, 2002, I entered a Memorandum Opinion (the \"September 13 Decision\") holding that the Little Rock Scho\u0026lt;,\u0026gt;I District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all of its 1 I would be seriously remiss ifl did not once again note the tremendous amowit of work United States Magistrate Judge Jb'e Thomas Ray has done on this case. 2Bryan Gamer; of Dallas, Texas, has published several excellent books and articles for the legal profession ori the use of plain, widerstandable En lish. \\072A :Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW bocumenr3875 ., Filed 06i30/2004 Page 2 of 74 desegregation obligations set forth in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"),3 except those obligations contained in 2.7.l. LRSD v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., et al., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D; Ark. 2002); atrd, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Section 2.7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement.\" Section 2. 7. I ensured that the promise made in  2. 7 would have teeth by requiring that: ex 871. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  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. As stated above, in the September 13 Decision, I found that LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under 2.7 of the Revised Plan; however, I determined there were numerous, substantial deficiencies in LRSD's efforts to comply with its obligations under 2. 7. I. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-1082. The September 13 Decision gave LRSD until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it had substantially complied with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised ' Plan, as specified in subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD has been involved continuously in desegregation litigation since l 956. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at footnote 18. As far as I can tell from the reported cases, LRSD now has the 3During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as CX87 l. -2- f A072A (Rev.8/82)   - ... . Cas-e 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 3 of 74 dubious distinction of having been under federal COl!.rt supervision longer than any other school district in history. Thus, LRSD is well seasoned when it comes to court supervision and monitoring. On November 12, 2002, Joshua Intervenors4 (\"Joshua\") appealed (docket no. 3704) the September t 3 Decision. On March 2, 2004, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. LRSD v. Joshua, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Thus, all aspects of the September 13 Decision are now final and the law of the case. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) seeking complete unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with the obligations imposed under the Compliance Remedy and 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Request for Release from Court Supervision of Its Desegregation Efforts (docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). I must now decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, and whether it should be released from almost five decades of court supervision. III. The September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy Almost 70% of LRSI?' s students are African-American. Historically, the academic achievement of many of these students, as gauged by standardized test scores, is low and poses a significant long-term challenge to LRSD teachers and administrators. Of course, because this so-called \"achievement gap\" is a nationwide phenomenon, it is a problem that educators must 4The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in.each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski Cowity Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. -3- .: ... .: f A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 4 of 74 confront in schools throughout the country. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1073-74. Importantly,  2.7 of.the Revised Plan promised only that LRSD would \"implement programs, policies and/or proced}Jfes designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement,\" See docket no. 3410 at 51. However,  2. 7 .1 went on to require LRSD to assess the  2. 7 programs annually in order to determine their effectiveness, and to modify or replace any programs that were shown not to be working to improve African-American achievement. Id. at 148. Read together, the obligations set forth in 2.7 and 2.,7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD not only to design academi.c programs that were intended to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, but also to make annuaJ assessments of those programs to ensure that they were, in fact, effective in improving African-American achievement. Expressed in the vernacular of my native Scott CoWlty, Arkansas,  2. 7 contained the sizzle and  2. 7 .1 contained the bacon. These two sections of the Revised Plan are crucially important to the future educational success of a large number ofLRSD's current and future students. During the 'November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, defined a program assessment as something that 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.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as \"more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a series of research questions that are usually provided by _whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. In other words, a program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always -4- f A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 5 of 74 involves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan provided that LRSD must inake assessrnents--not evaluations--of the  2. 7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. However, as early as March 15, 2000,  LRSD acknowledged, in its own Interim Compliance Report ( docket no. 3356), that  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan obligated it to prepare evaluations on the key  2. 7 programs so that LRSD administrators could make an informed decision on the effectiveness of those programs. See LRSD's Interim Compliance Report at 51-55. Furthermore, during her testimony in November of 2001, Dr. Lesley admitted that, even though 2.7.l of the Revised Plan did not mention anything about LRSD 's obligation to prepare program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs, she and other administrators interpreted that section of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to perform evaluations covering the most important  2. 7 programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Because it is so important to an understanding of the Compliance Remedy, I want to be very clear on this point: The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that LRSD has always construed the obligations contained in 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan as requiring I it to prepare formal program evaluations on the key 2.7 programs. See Interim Compliance Report at 51-55; Final Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001 (docket no. 3410) at 148; Dr. Lesley's testimony cited in the September 13 Decision, LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 077. Since my decision will tum on whether LRSD has properly implemented the September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy, it is set forth below in full: -5- ----- - J A072A (Rev.6182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 6 of 74 VII. Compliance Remedy Because LRSD failed to substantiaJly comply with the crucially important obligations contained in  2. 7 .1, it must remain under court. supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) d.emonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under  2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan. The details of this compliance remedy are set forth below: 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 Afiican-Ameri~ students. LRSD now has over three years oftesting 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 na111es 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 (~.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.s I will accept all program evaluations son page 148 of its March 15, 200 I Final Compliance Report ( docket no. 341 O); LRSD flatly stated that it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen separate programs listed on that -6- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 7 of 74 D. that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as. practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving AfricanAmerican 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. 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 2.7.1, 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. E. The ODM must also monitor LRSD's compliance with  2. 7. I and. help to ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. I. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in this Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. page. During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the evidence overwhelmingly established that, . as of March 15, 2001, LRSD had not prepared any of those fourteen program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1079-80. Henceforth, I will refer to these fourteen program evaluations as the \"Page 148 Evaluations.,. -7- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 8 of 74 LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d.at 1087-88 (empbasis added). Even a casual reading of this Compliance Remedy reveals that it imposed four essential was r rrarto ua y assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 during the 2002-2003 school year and the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year and then use those assessments, the more than three years of testing data, and all other relevant available infonnation to determine the effectiveness of those programs and to decide whether any of the programs should be modified or eliminated. LRSD also was required to maintain written records reflecting: (a) the criteria used to assess each program; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether any programs were modified or eliminated; and (c) the administrators and teachers who were involved in preparing the assessment of each program. Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the  2. 7 programs implemented during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year and to maintain written records of its annual assessments of each of those programs. I made no mention of LRSD 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.\" See discussion, supra, at 4-5. Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Because I was tracking the parties' own language, I never dreamed the use of the terms assess and assessment would suddenly create confusion for LRSD administrators __ --in deciding how tocomply witb._subparts A and B o Compliance Remedy. ~ - -- . - -----.,_ Preparation of Page 148 Program Evaluations. l::R:SB was required t\u0026lt;Yhire-ex-perts to prepare the fourteen program evaluations identified on page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. The Court agreed to accept all program evaluations that had already been prepared by outside consultants and ordered LRSD to hire outside consultants to complete the unfinished program evaluations, which were to be approved by the LRSD Board and filed with the Court no later than March 15, 2003. Finally, _as those evaluations were prepared, LRSD was required to use them - to the extent they -8- P.072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866~\\NRW  Document 3.875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page g' of 74 A. might be useful - in its annual assessment of the effectiveness of the  2. 7 -----PfOis~i.u....,,~--Monitoring. ~~:fosmul!s-.co,~el was required to continue with its monitoring of LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to use the procedures set forth in  8.2 of the Revised Plan to resolve any compliance problems that might arise. IfJoshua and LRSO were unsuccessful in using the ODM to facilitate and resolve those problems, they were required to bring those compliance issues directly to me for resolution. Finally, the ODM was directed to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy and ''to help ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations\" specified therein. The sole pwpose of subparts D and Ethe Compliance Remedy was to ensure that, if the ODM was unable to successfully facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues raised by Joshua, those compliance issues would be brought to my attention so that I could resolve them on a timely basis, thereby avoiding-any surprises when LRSD filed its Compliance Report. 4. ---L.R Dw Q.!llete\u0026lt;Lto.nl~ p 1anceReportbyMarch 15,2004,documenting its substantial compliance with  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. IV. The Parties' Compliance Activities after September 13, 2002 The Court Clarifies Joshua's Monitoring Obligation. After the entry of the September I~ Decision, LRSD did not seek clarification of any terms used in the Compliance ~emedy or any of its compliance obligations. Based on its silence, I concluded that LRSD understood what it was required to do under the Compliance Remedy, and that it was proceeding apace to meet those obligations. In contrast, on October l, 2002, Joshua's counsel wrote a letter (docket no. 3680) objecting to the monitoring obligations imposed on them under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy. Among other things, Joshua's counsel challeiiged the Court's \u0026lt;le.cision to: lI) impose monitoring obligations on them \"that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM\"; -9- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82} .... .. . ~-- .. ' .. : .. . , . ' ... : Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 10 of 74 and (2) place \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the ODM.\" Id. By way . ofrelief, Joshua's counsel sought clarification of their monitoring obligations under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and ''a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of the ODM monitoring and Joshua's monitoring may be fully developed.\" Id. On October 11, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3685) clarifying the monitoring obligations imposed on Joshua's counsel under the Compliance Remedy. After noting that Joshua's counsel had. been engaged in monitoring LRSD's oo.mpliance with its desegregation obligations since at least 1990, I made it clear that subpart D of the Compliance Remedy only obligated Joshua's counsel \"to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. Because the October l, 2002 lettercould be read to suggest that Joshua's counsel would only continue their monitoring role, if ordered to do so by the Court, I also made it clear that: I do not believe I can force Joshua's counsel to perform monitoring duties - something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to do. I will leave it up to Joshua's counsel to decide if they have an ethical and professional duty to continue monitoring LRSD's compli . le remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshua's counsel resolves that ques 100 m avor o continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregatio~ obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan- something I never expected to hear-I believe I must now clarify Section VII.D. of~e Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua may monitor LRSD's compliance with 2. 7. l and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention ofLRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. I, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must '15e 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 shall L .   A072A (Rev.8182)  ,., . __  ..  ..  ... . ' _ ,. ..... . : . ;.,.; r. . . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 11 of 74 present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1091. , Finally, I emphasized that, regardless of whether Joshua's counsel decided to continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised- Plan, \"the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring of LRSD 's compliance with that section of the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1091. My final admonition on the subject of monitoring was as follows: If Joshua's counsel decide to continue their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, . . . I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSD's implementation of its obligations under 2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I will be available to resolve them. Id. at 1091. B. LRSD Adopts Compliance Plan, Approves Regulation IL-RI, and Designates \"Areas\" for  2. 7. I Program Evaluations. On October IO, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors (''the Board\") adopted a \"Compliance Plan\" that was specifically designed to satisfy the Court's Compliance Remedy. See Exhibit A to LRSD's May 14, 2003 Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745).6 The 6During the June 14 and 15, 2004 compliance hearing (hereafter referred to as the \"compliance hearing''), the Proposed Compliance Plan was introduced into evidence as LRSD 's Exhibit No. 2. In most respects, the Proposed Compliance Plan is identical to the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October I 0, 2002. However, the Proposed Compliance Plan raises a number of questions about the meaning of subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. All of those questions were deleted from the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October J 0, 2002. As will be discussed later, LRSD did not bring any any of those questions to my attention, or otherwise seek clarification of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy. -11- ,012A :Rev.8/82) ( ' ' '  .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Compliance Plan recognized that, in order for LRSD to meet its obligations wider the Compliance Remedy, it would have to satisfy three core obligations: (1) \"develop a written procedure for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant' to  2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; (2) \"maintain written records of the criteria used to evaluate each [ 2.7] program\"; and (3) \"[p]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to ...  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic ~chievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). Significantly, there is nothing in the Compliance Plan adopted by the Board that suggests LRSD was confused about the meaning of any of the terms in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Additionally, the Compliance Plan m~es it clear that LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to .. .  2.7 .... \" The Compliance Plan also included a detailed \"Action Plan Time Line\" that: (1) identified the LRSD employees who were responsible for implementing each \"activity\" necessary to satisfy the Compliance R~edy; and (2) provided a schedule for completing each of those activities. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, and Dr. Ken James, LRSD's Superintendent of Schools, were assigned personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified by the \"Action Plan Time Line.\" Id. at 7-IO. Thus, it was up to Dr. Lesley and Dr. James to spearhead the timely implementation of all twentyeight \"activities\" necessary to satisfy the Compliance Remedy. Finally, at the same time it approved the Compliance Plan, the Board also adopted -12- L A072A (Rev.8182)  . . :.  \u0026gt; . .:. . ~~ -: - . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 13 of 74 Regulation \"IL-RI,\" which set forth \"the written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students.\" See Exluoit A at 2 (docket no. 3745).7 According to the Compliance Plan, Regulation IL-RI established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSD's obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. On October 24, 2002, the Board approved a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" for the 2002- 03 school year that authorized the preparation of evaluations in three broad areas: (I) Elementary literacy; (2) Secondary literacy; and (3) the National Science Foundation (''NSF\") K-12 Math and Science Project. See LRSD's Exhibit No. 3; ODM's March 30, 2004 Report on LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy at 4 (hereinafter referred to as the \"ODM's Compliance Report\") (docket no. 3854). LRSD subsequently construed the 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda as requiring it to prepare only two 2.7. l. evaluations in order to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy: (l) a comprehensive \"Literacy Evaluation\"; and (2) a comprehensive \"Math and Science Evaluation.\" Of course, \"Literacy\"; and \"Math and Science\" are not \"programs\"-- they are broad academic areas that roughly correspond to the grouping of college courses into \"Arts.\" or \"Sciences.\" Because LRSD administrators, such as Dr. Lesley, had always construed 2.7.l of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to prepare evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs implemented to improve African-American achievement, the Board should have been aware that 7During the compliance hearing, Regulation IL-RI was introduced into evidence as Joshua's Exhibit No. 2. -13- L ' A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004   Page 14 of'i4 ',, they were being too general in dividing the academic universe into \"Literacy\" and \"Math/Science\" and then preparing a global evaluation of each of those areas. Nevertheless, in its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), LRSD contends that these two 2.7.l evaluations fully satisfy all of its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy.8 C. Joshua Invokes Facilitation Provision of Revised Plan. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Ann Marshan, the Director of the ODM, wrote Joshua's counsel a letter confirming that she: (a) had received their Noyember 1, 2002 letter requesting that she facilitate9 the dispute that had arisen between Joshua and LRSD regarding the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan; and (b) was willing to facilitate that dispute. 10 Thereafter, I was never contacted by Joshua's counsel or anyone else about the outcome of the ODM's facilitation efforts. Because subpart D of the Compliance Remedy obligated Joshua's counsel to contact me only if the facilitation was unsuccessful, I concluded from the parties' silence (and the ODM's silence) that the ODM had successfully resolved this dispute. On November 6, 2002, I wrote Ms. Marshall to reinforce the crucially important role I expected her to play in monitoring LRSD's compliance with its obligations under the Compliance 8 As I explain later in some detail, I was not made aware ofLRSD's Proposed Compliance Plan and Regulation IL-RI until two months after LRSD filed its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report. LRSD did not file the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan with the Court until March t 4, 2003. 9Section 8.2 of the Revised Plan required the parties to use the ODM to \"facilitate\" the resolution of any compliance issues. Since the words \"facilitation\" and \"facilitate\" come directly from the Revised Plan, I will use them. 10 A copy of Ms. Marshall's November 4, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit A, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. -14- .. , .... .  ,: , ... . ... : A072A (Rev.8/82) Case.4:82-cv-00866-\\,,\\IRW . Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 15 of 74 :  \" Remedy.11 The instructions to her were: It seems to me it would be best if you worked with the parties toward implementing the remedies; but you should feel free to contact me in writing if a . serious impasse develops . . In other words, as long as everything is going along smoothly, I see no reason for you to make regular reports to me in this respect. I emphasize, however, that you should feel free to call on me if serious problems arise. Neither the parties nor the ODM ever contacted me to request that I become involved in resolving any compliance disputes or other \"serious impasses\" between LRSD and Joshua, despite the requirement for such contact by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and my November 6, 2002 letter. D. The Six Completed or Substantially Completed Page 148 Evaluations. The September 13 Decision stated that the Court ''will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and Project; (3) Charter Schools; (4) English as a Second Language; (5) SEDL12 Program at . - I Southwest Middle School; and (6) CoJlaborative Action Team Project. By December 31, 2002, LRSD's Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. 11A copy of my November 6, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit B, is attached to this Memorandwn Opinion. 12SEDL is an acronym for \"Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.\" See ODM's Compliance Report at 8 (docket no. 3854). -15- I, . ' ,l , .  \\072A Rev.8/82) .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW  Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 16 of?i_'. E. The Eight Remaining Page 148 Evaluations. LRSD contracted with-Dr. Steven Ross, a program evaluation expert and a member of the facuJty at the University of Memphis, to prepare guidelines for completing or revising the eight remaining evaluations.13 These eight evaluations covered the following programs: ( l) Middle Schools; (2) Extended Year Schools; (3) HIPPY;14 (4) Campus Leadership Teams; (5) Swnmer ----- - School - Elementary; (6) Lyceum Scholars Program; (7) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary; and (8) Vital Link. -In late November of 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document captioned \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.\"15 On January l 0, 2003, LRSD contracted with Dr. Ross and two other program evaluation experts, Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, to prepare these eight program evaluations. Dr. Ross prepared or completed evaluations on Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams; Dr. Moore prepared or completed evaluations on Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education; and Dr. McNeal completed evaluations on Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School. _O_n M_ar_ch _14_, 20_03_, L_RS_D f_ile d all fourteen of the Page 148 Evaluations with the Court, ..,_ ______, - as required by subpart C of tpe Compliance Remedy. See LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745) . . The six evaluations, which were substantially completed as of 13 A number of years ago, Joshua formally agreed that Dr. Ross has the qualifications necessary to prepare program evaluations. 14HIPPY is an acronym for\"Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters.\" See ODM's Compliance Report (docket no. 3854) at 8.  15During the compliance hearing, this document :,,vas introduced as LRSD's Exht'bit No. 5. -16- \\072A Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 1 i of 7 4 . ~ September 13, 2002: are bound together in Volumes I and II. The remaining eight Page 148 Evaluations \"are bound together in Volumes m and IV.16 On April 14, 2003, Joshua filed \"Comments on the Submission of Page 148 Evaluations.\" (Docket no. 3752.) These comments identify and discuss numerous alleged \"deficiencies,\"most of which are contained in the eight Page 148 Evaluations that were completed and approved by the Board after January l, 2003.  F. Dr. Lesley and Dr. James Resign. On March 14, 2003, the same day LRSD filed the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations,'7 Dr. Lesley, who was responsible for overseeing the preparation of those evaluations, resigned, and, two months later, Dr. James, LRSD's Superintendent, also resigned. As indicated ,- previously, LRSD's Compliance Plan had assigned Dr. Lesley and Dr. James direct responsibility for each of the twenty-eight time line activities necessary for LRSD to implement the Compliance 16During the compliance bearing, these fourteen program evaluations were introduced as LRSD's Exhibit No. 13. 17During its implementation of the Revised Plan in 1998 through early 200 I, LRSD originally intended to use its own Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") to prepare the fourteen Page 1481 Evaluations. Dr. Kathy Lease was the Assistant Superintendent who headed PRE and reported to Dr. Lesley. See ODM's Compliance Report at 2. According to Dr. Lesley's testimony during the November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Lease \"dropped the ball\" in preparing these evaluations, which resulted in only a few partially completed and woefully inadequate evaluations being available on Mar~h 15, 200 l, the deadline for LRSD to file its Compliance Report seeking unitary status. Additionally, Dr. Lesley testified that, in her opinion, no one in PRE-including Dr. Lease--had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077-81. In early 2001, Dr. Lease resigned and ieft LRSD for other job opportunities. Since that time, PRE has functioned with only a statistician and several support employees, but no one was hired to replace Dr. Lease or take over and operate the department. In November of 2003, LRSD appointed the statistician as the acting head of PRE. As a result. since Dr. Lease's departure in early 200 I, LRSD has essentially functioned without a meaningful Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. See ODM's Compliance Report at 6. -17- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 18 o(? ,f Remedy. Thus, less than a year after the September 13 Decision, LRSD lost both of the crucially important leaders to whom all responsibility had been assigned for implementing LRSD's Compliance Plan. Both Dr. James and Dr. Lesley had been deeply involved for years in LRSD's implementation ofits desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan, and both were thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of satisfying judicially imposed desegregation obligations. The almost simultaneous departures of Dr. James and Dr. Lesley dring the early stages of LRSD's implementation of its Compliance Plan clearly created problems for LRSD in its compliance efforts. In the ODM's Compliance Report, the authors observe that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of LRSD's Compliance Plan, and the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in filling those positions with \"acting'' or\"interim\" employees created \"a period of some uncertainty' for LRSD. Id. at 5. In June of 2003, LRSD appointed an Interim Superintendent to replace Dr. James. Later that month, on June 26, 2003, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who previously had been the Director of LRSD 's Math and Science Department, was appointed to succeed Dr. Lesley as Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction 11d Curriculum. According to the Compliance Plan's \"Action Plan Time Line,\" Mr. Glasgow originally was assigned responsibility for only two of the twenty-eight time line activities. Although it was not mentioned in LRSD's Compliance Report ( docket no. 3837), during the recent compliance hearing, Mr. Glasgow testified that, on March 18, 2003, he assumed responsibility for all of Dr. Lesley's twenty-eight activities under the Compliance Plan. In August of 2003, after the Interim Superintendent, hired only three months earlier, left that position, LRSD hired Dr. Morris Holmes as the second Interim Superintendent. Dr. Holmes -18- ~----------------------------------------------- A.072A (Rev.8182) Cas~ 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 19 of 74 has continued to serve as Interim Superintendent through the date of this Memorandum Opinion.11 LRSD 's Compliance Report does not address what role, if any, Dr. Holmes had in implementing the Compliance Plan.,_ It seems that Dr. Holmes or someone else should have been assigned responsibility for the twenty-eight time line activities that had been assigned to Dr. James in the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan; but the Compliance Report is silent on this point G. LRSD Files Its Compliance Report Seeking Release from Court Supervision. When LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) on March 12, 2004, 19 it was supported by documents attached to it as Exhibits A through G. According to LRSD, the documents attached to the Compliance Report establish that it has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy and is entitled to be released from all further court supervision and monitoring. A careful reading of the Compliance Report reveals a number of revelations tha,:. cast LRSD's efforts in a less than favorable light. First, the Report states that: (a) in October of 2002, less than sixty days after the Court's September 13 Decision, Joshua's counsel \"raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan\"; (b) subsequently, Joshua's counsel ''invoked the Process for Raising Complian\u0026lt;;e Issues set forth in Revised Plan  8.2\" and\"[ the parties] met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement\"; and ( c) the parties' last such meeting with Ms. Marshall was on February 28, 2003, but the parties failed to reach an agreement on Joshua's 180n June 11, 2004, the Board announced that it hired Mr. Roy Gregory Brooks to serve as LRSD's new Superintendent of Schools. It is my understanding that sometime in July or August Mr. Brooks will assume his new duties as Superintendent. 19During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced into evidence as LRSD 's Exhibit No. 14. -19-  A072A (Rev.8/82) ' . , . . ... . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 20 of 74 .    objections to the adequacy of the Compliance Plan. See Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) at 1-2. Thus, LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in late 2002 had failed--neither the parties nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002 letter to Ms. Marshall. Second, LRSD contends that, by failing to bring the parties' disagreement over the Compliance Plan to the Court's attention, \"Joshua waived any pbjections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan.\" Id. at 1-2. As I explained earlier, the sole purpose of subpart D of the Compliance Remedy was to require the parties to bring potential compliance problems to my attention, as soon as they arose, so that I could resolve them early enough to prevent them from becoming stumbling blocks to LRSD's compliance with its obligations under the other subparts of the Compliance Remedy. After the OD M's facilitation efforts failed, it must have soon become obvious to LRSD's counsel and the ODM that Joshua's counsel was not going to notify the Court. It seems to me that, at this point, both LRSD and ODM should have realized that it was in LRSD's best interest to let me determine, in March of 200;3--while there was still time to do something about it--if the compliance issues raised by Joshua had merit. In 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 ofJoshua'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. I believe I would be ill advised to adopt \"waiver'' as a way to avoid reaching the merits i\u0026gt;f the adequacy of the board-~pproved -20- .. A072A (Aev.8/82) Casa 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Compliance Plan. In other words, I find that it would be inappropriate for me to default approximately 17,000 LRSD students. Third, LRSD acknowledges in the Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) that it was  required to do two things to satisfy the core obligations imposed by subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) \"develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; and (2) \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" See Compliance Report at page 2, paragraph 4 (docket no. 3837; LRSD's Exhibit No. 14) (emphasis added). To satisfy this first core obligation, which is contained in subpart B of the Compliance Remedy, the Compliance Report states that the Board adopted Regulation IL-RI. As indicated previously, the Board adopted Regulation IL-RI on October 10, 2002. But, LRSD did not make this key Regulation an Exhibit to either its March 14, 2003 Notice ofFiling Evaluations Pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliimce Remedy (docket no. 3745) or its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). On May 12, 2004, after I had been unable to locate this document anywhere in the record, I entered an Order ( docket no. 3864) requiring that LRSD provide a copy ofRebtdation IL-RI . The next day, LRSD filed its Response (docket no. 3865), which attached Regulation IL-RI as Appendix I to Exhibit A of that docwnent. Regulation IL-RI contained the fo])owing procedures that were to be followed in preparing all future 2.7.1 program evaluations: -21- A072A (Aev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 22 of 74 (1) \"Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with infonnation about the schedule of its implementation.\" (2) \"Agree on the 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?\"' (3)  \"If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another program with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See  2.7.1 of the Revised Designation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.)\" (4) \"Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g. dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to Superintendent; Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved) and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved).\" (5) The team preparing the program evaluations had to meet ''to monitor the completion of assignments\"; ''to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\"; and \"to fonnulate recommendations . . . 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 being successful for the -22- A072A (Rev.8/82) I . .. - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 23 of 74 (6) improvement of African-American achievement.\" A final draft of the program evaluation had to be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction \"at least one month before placing the report on the Board's agenda for review and approval.\" (7) After the program evaluation was approved by the Board, a copy of the complete report had to be made available to \"the ODM and Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved).\" (8) \"Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of the work to evaluate the process and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluation.\" See Regulation IL-RJ at 3-7 ( emphasis added). In paragraph 8 of the Compliance Report, LRSD states that it satisfied the second core obligation specified in subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, by doing the following things: (I) Dr. Steve Ross was hired \"to prepare evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs.\" UJtimately, Dr. Ross authored the global \"Literacy Evaluation,\" w,hich the Board approved in November of 2003. See Exhibit F to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837).20 (2) Dr. Don Wold, a retired member of the faculty at UALR, authored the global \"Math and Science Evaluation,\" which covered the overall math and science cu,rricula (grades K-12) that LRSD had implemented with the grant it received 20 As indicated previously, during the compliance hearing, the Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSD's Exhibit No. 14. -23- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82) - ...  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Fiied 06/30/2004  Page 24 o(14 ,:; .. from the NSF.  The Board approved this evaluation in December 2003. See Exhibit G to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). According to the Compliance Report, these two global e~aluations satisfy all of LRSD's obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy and constitute \"substantial compliance\" with the obligations contained in 2. 7. l of the Revised Plan. Ominously, the Compliance Report says nothing about whether these two evaluations complied with the mandatory requirements of Regulation IL-R 1. H. The ODM's Compliance Re.port on LRSD's Implementation of the Compliance Remedy. On March 30, 2004, the ODM filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3854)21 commenting on various aspects ofLRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy. The first four pages of the ODM's Compliance Report re-plow the now largely irrelevant events related to LRSD's earlier compliance efforts under the Revised Plan.22 The remaining nineteen pages of the Compliance Report contain \"Findings and Conclusions\" that, for the most part, criticize LRSD's compliance efforts. Amon the more significant \"Findings and Conclusions\" in the ODM's Compliance Report are the following: . (1) As of Septemb,er 13, 2002, the date the Court imposed the Compliance Remedy, LRSD had implemented at least forty-six programs designed to improve African- 21During the compliance hearing, the ODM's Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSD's Exhibit No. 15. 22The September 13 Decision addressed in detail all of the events described in these four . pages of the ODM's Compliance Report. -24- . ' , \\072A Rev.8/82} Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875  _.Filed b6i30/2004 Page 25 of 74 ... . . ....  . .  .. (2) American achievement under 2.7 of the Revised Plan.23 Id at 10. The ODM had difficulty getting LRSD administrators to identify the specific 2. 7 programs that would be evaluated under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD administrators finally acknowledged to the ODM that ''the program evaluation agenda for the 2002-03 school year would include only elementary literacy, secondary literacy, and the NSF math and science project.\" LRSD administrators never explained to the ODM which  2.7 programs would be covered in the literacy arid math and science evaluations. Id. at 12. (3) While the Compliance Remedy directed LRSD to use \"a11 available testing data\" in assessing the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs, LRSD only did so in the Evaluation of the Math and Science Programs. (Exhibit G to LRSD 's Compliance Report.) In the Literacy Program Evaluation (Exhibit F to LRSD's Compliance Report), LRSD limited the testing data to \"the SAT9 and the benchmark literacy exams.\" Id. at 14. ( 4) Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records reflecting \"the, results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of programs.\" LRSD, 231 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. The ODM concluded that, while Exhibit C to LRSD's Compliance Report describes the annual program modifications for elementary and secondary literacy and math, there is no 23During the compliance hearing, LRSD witnesses correctly pointed out that the chart on page 10 of the ODM's Compliance Report was flawed. Among other things, a number of programs are listed twice, and some of the things that are listed as ''programs\" are not. -25- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Oocu~~~t 3875. Filed 06i30/2004 Page 26 '0(74'. (5) discussion of anriual program mocl_ifications for science. i4 Id. at 15. The ODM's Compliance Report noted numerous shortcomings in the Literacy Program Evaluation. Id. at 1677. However, the most serious criticism was that ''the evaluation draws no conclusions about the extent to which student performance might be affected by program components, such as Reading Recovery or Accelerated Reader, nor does it correlate any teaching practices with student achievement.\" Id. at 18. (6) The ODM's most serious criticism of the Math and Science Evaluation was that it \"does not offer data relative to the level of uniformity of program implementation\" and does not identify which  2. 7 programs most directly improved the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science courses. Id. at 19. (7) By the time the C9urt entered its September 13 Decision, six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations had already been completed or substantially completed by outside consultants. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that ''the Court wit! accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board.\" Between October 24, 2002, and December 19, 2 2, the Board voted to approve these six evaluations which covered the following programs: (a) Pre K-3 Literacy; (b) NSF Math and Science; ( c) Charter School; ( d) English as a Second Language; (e) 24Although not mentioned in the ODM's Compliance Report, Exhibit C also fails to discuss the reasons for making each of the modifications in the math and literacy programs, or and how those modifications were expected to improve the effectiveness of those programs. -26- A072A (Rev.8182) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 27 of 74 SEDL Program - Southwest Middle School; and (f) Collaborative ActionTeam. The OD M's Compliance Report does not contain any significant criticism of these six evaluations. Id. at 20. (8) As of September 13, 2002, eight of the Page 148 Evaluations still remained to be prepared. Under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was obligated to hire outside consultants to prepare those eight evaluations and then file them with the Court by March 15, 2003. The eight programs that were the subject of these evaluations were as follows: (a) Middle Schools hnplementation; (b) Extended Year Schools; ( c) HIPPY; ( d) Campus Leadership Teams; ( e) Elementary Summer School; (f) Lyceum Scholars Program; (g) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary; and (b) Vital Link. Id. The last four of these programs had already been discontinued by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. Thus, only the evaluations on the first four of these programs (Middle Schools program, Extended Year Schools program, HIPPY program, and Campus Leadership Teams program) had any potential to be useful to LRSD.25 (9) All eight of the Page 148 Evaluations prepared by outside consultants were heavily criticized by the ODM. The cited source for much of this criticism was Dr. Ross, who prepared two of the four evaluations for ongoing programs and two of the four evaluations for discontinued programs. According to the ODM's Report, Dr. Ross told the ODM that: (a) \"[t]he evaluations of the subject 25 As indicated previously, LRSD originally intended to use Dr. Kathy Lease and its PRE Department to design and prepare these eight evaluations. When Dr. Lease resigned and left her position with LRSD in early 200 I, none of these evaluations had been prepared. -27- .,. ,072A Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 28 of 74  programs 'were worthless,' both as originally prepared and currently\" and that the discontinued programs he was hired to evaluate were \"dead wood\"; (b) he did not understand _why LRSD had declined to provide additional updated information and data on the four ongoing programs \"in order to facilitate more effective evaluations\"; and (c) \"(t]he evaluations were of little or no use to the district.\" (10) Echoing Dr. Ross's criticism of the eight Page 148 Evaluations, the ODM -------- observed that: \"(LRSD 's] asking the outside evaluators to rewrite the evaluations ------------..  _._.-... #, ~_....,_ -  I using the same data from the original, unacceptable versions [prepared internally by Dr. Lease] is similar to asking mechanics to tear down a Yugo and put it back together as a Lexus.\" Id. at 21-22. The ODM concluded this section of the Report by noting that: \"Sadly, the evaluations are so flawed that they reveal little of substance that would enable the district to draw conclusions about the - programs, ascertain the effectiveness of their component parts, point out appropriate modifications, or decide whether to drop a program altogether.\" Id. at 22. (The direct charge to the ODM was to work closely with LRSD to help to ensure it met it~ obligations under the Compliance Remedy. Thus the ODM's stinging criticism ofLRSD's compliance efforts is, at least in part, an admission of its own shortcomings. It seems to me that the ODM should have been less reasonably possible.) -28- 11.072A '.Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 29 of 74 I. Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition To LRSD's Motion to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Effort ( docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). Joshua begins their Memorandum by framing the compliance issue with the following quotes from the September 13 Decision: I find that the purpose of 2. 7. I was to make sure that the programs 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 AfricanAmerican students; for, without performing rigorous annual assessments 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. * * * I conclude that the Court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076, 1086. Joshua's Mernorand~ goes on to discuss the following areas in which they allege that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) During the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the dozens of -programs it implemented pursuant to  2. 7 of the Revised Plan in order to _________ __.,_ determine if those programs were effective in improving the academic -29- A072A (Aev.8182) ...  ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 30 of 74 achievement of African-American students. However, in the two global program evaluations, attached as Exhibits F and G to its March 12, 2004 Compliance Report, LRSD does not identify with any degree of precision which of the dozens of  2. 7 programs are included in each evaluation, much less address the effectiveness of each of those programs in improving African-American achievement. Joshua's Memorandum (docket no. 3857) at 2-3. (2) Regulation IL-Rl explicitly required each  2. 7, 1 program evaluation to set forth and answer the following crucially important research question: \"Has the curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" See Appendix 1 to Exhibit A at 1{ 6(0) (docket no. 3865). However, this mandatory research question is not included among the research questions set forth in the Literacy Program Evaluation.26 Joshua's Memorandum (docket no. 3857) at 4. (3) Both the Literacy Evaluation and Math and Science Evaluation contain only broad generalizations about student achievement based solely on standardized test data, rather than a specific analysis of which of the dozens of 2. 7 programs actually worked in improving African-American achievement in the areas of literacy, math, and science and which of those programs need to be modified or eliminated. Id. at 5-6. (4) Regulation IL-RI explicitly required that: (a) a program evaluation include, as part of its ''program documentation,\" a clear and accurate description of the 26See Exhibit Fat I (docket no. 3837). -30- ~072A Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 31 of74 program being evaluated (see Appendix 1 at 3 to Exhibit A of docket no. 3865); and (b) the team leader ensure that each program evaluation contain \"a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated . ... \" (See Appendix I to Exhibit A at page 5, paragraph 6(c) (docket no. 3865).) According to Joshua, the Literacy Evaluation contained only a cun;ory description of a few of the 2.7 programs implemented to improve the literacy of AfricanAmerican students and the Math and Science Evaluation contains only a list of the math and science courses that were available to LRSD students.at various grade levels. Id. at 6-8. (5) LRSD's Page 148 Evaluations, filed on March 13, 2003 (docket no. 3745), are inadequate because: (a) they do not satisfy the standards for program evaluations contained in Regulation IL-RI; (b) according to Dr. Ross, who was involved in preparing those evaluations, they were \"for the most part ... worthless . .. [ and] oflittle orno use to the district\" (see ODM's Compliance Report at 21); and (c) LRSD failed to use the Page 148 Evaluations, as part of the assessment process, to determine ttie effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs in improving AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Id. at 8-9. (6) Regulation IL-Rl provided that the team leader for each evaluation shall \"provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the superintendent's cabinet and/or compliance team) to stakeholders, including . . . the ODM (until unitary status is achieved), and the -31- A072A (Rev.6182) .. ~ ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 32 of74  J. Joshua Intervenors (until unitary status ifachieved).\" According to Joshua, LRSD failed to provide them or the ODM with the progress reports on the preparation of the program evaluations, as required by Regulation IL-RI. LRSD 's Proposed Compliance Plan and Proposed Regulation IL-R2 Finally Surface. On May 12, 2004, I entered an Order (docket no. 3864) asking LRSD to immediately provide me with a copy of Regulation IL-R 1. In its May 13, 2004 Response ( docket no. 3865), LRSD attached a copy ofIL-Rl ,27 along with the two documents th~t were not requested: (1) LRSD's \"Proposed Compliance Plan.\"28 (2) LRSD's \"Proposed Il.rR2.\"29 LRSD does not explain why it decided to bring these last two documents to my attention at this late date in the compliance process. The \"Proposed Compliance Plan,\" which was prepared within thirty days after the entry of the September 13 Decision, contains numerous questions about the meaning of various terms used in the Compliance Remedy. For example, the Compliance Committee states that they are \"confused\" by the Court's use of the term \"assessment\" in subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy, something that required \"the Compliance Committee to determine the District Court's intended meaning.\"30 See Proposed Compliance Plan at 3-4. Additionally, this document 21See Appendix I to docket no. 3865; see also Joshua's Exhibit No. 2. 28See Exhibit A to docket no. 3865; see also LRSD's Exhibit No. 2. 29See Appendix 2 to docket no. 3865. 30Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan obliged LRSD to \"assess\" uieeffectiveness of the 2. 7 programs and, if that assessment revealed the programs were not likely to improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace those programs. Nowhere in  2. 7.1 does it mention anything about LRSD being required to prepare \"program evaluations\" -32-  t.l  A072A (Aev.8/82) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 P~ge 33 of74 contains a lengthy discussion about the meaning of certain obligations in subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, which required LRSD to complete and file the eight unfinished Page 148 Evaluations by March 15, 2003. Id. at 7-8. As previously discussed, on October I 0, 2002, the Board approved the.final \"Compliance Plan,\" which LRSD attached as Exhibit A to its March 14, 2003 Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Compliance Remedy (docket no. 3745). LRSD's May 13, 2004 Response does not explain why none of the many.questions raised in the Proposed Compliance Plan were mentioned in the.final Compliance Plan, which was filed on March 14, 2003. It seems clear to me that these questions should have been brought to my attention when they were first put on paper--roughly a year and a half ago. \"Proposed.Regulation IL-R2\" was intended to govern the preparation and content of \"Informal Program Evaluations.\" The stated purpose of this regulation was \"to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program.\" See Appendix 2 to docket no. 3865. On page 6 of the \"Proposed Compliance Plan\" (Exhibit A to docket no. 3865), it noted that Proposed Regulation IL-R2 \"was drafted to address\" the following specific concern that was raised in the September 13 Decision: I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters' worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD's AfricanAmerican students are actually working. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1079. According to the \"Proposed Compliance Plan,\" Proposed in.order to determine the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs. However, as I explained previously on pages 4-5, LRSD unquestionably construed  2. 7 .1 as re.quiring it to perform \"evaluations\" of the key 2.7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. -33- ,012A Rev.8/82) . . . . . ... ,.  :-:.\"\"1 ' . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 34 of 74 Regulation IL-R2 satisfied my concern by \"prohibiting substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B [of the Compliance Remedy).\" Proposed Regulation IL-R2 clearly was intended to meet certain of the ,obligations imposed on LRSD under subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 087- 88. Yet, LRSD's May I 3, 2004 Response (docket no. 3865) does not explain why the Board failed to adopt Proposed Regulation IL-R2. Likewise, the OD M's Compliance Report sheds no light on why the Board did not adopt Proposed Regulation IL-R2. Instead, the ODM merely notes in passing that, after drafting Proposed Regulation IL-R2, LRSD \"ultimately decided [itJ was unnecessary and did not adopt [it].\" It appears now that, from the very outset of its efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was badly confused about what it was required to do. It is hard to understand why this confusion was not brought to my attention. I would have been more than happy to explain precisely what I meant in the Compliance Remedy if this matter had been brought to my attention. Be all of this as it may, LRSD now finds itselfin the position of arguing that it has substantial1y complied with desegregation obligations that its Compliance Committee found to be confusing and difficult to understand. And this means, of course, that LRSD's \"puzzlement\" was unknown until it was too late for it to cure the problems. V. Compliance Hearing on LRSD's Request for Release from Court Supervision and Monitoring On June I 4 and 15, 2004, I conducted a compliance hearing on LRSD's request \"that the Court find that LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of [its] school operations; -34- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 35 of 74 and that it be released from all further supervi. s:-ion and monitoring ofits desegregation effort.\" See Compliance Report at 4 (LRSD's Exhibit No. 14). LRSD called the following witnesses to testify in support ofits having met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy: ( 1) Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's former Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; (2) Dr. Steven M. Ross, the Director of the Center for Research in Education Policy at the University of Memphis; (3) Ms. Vanessa Cleaver, LRSD's Director of the NSF Grant; and (4) Mr. Dennis Glasgow, LRSD's Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. After LRSD rested, Joshua moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), on the ground that LRSD had failed to establish a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for finding that it had substantially complied with its obligations under subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. Ruling from the bench, I granted Joshua's Motion, in part, by finding that LRSD had failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to support its contention that it had substantially complied with its obligation under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. However, I denied Joshua's Motion with respect to LRSD's proof that it had substantially complied with it obligations under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Joshua's counsel then stated, on the record, that they were withdrawing their challenge to LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. For that reason, Joshua called no witnesses. After explaining to counsel that I intended to prepare detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to support my ruling on Joshua's Rule 52(c) Motion, I adjourned the compliance hearing. -35- A072A (Rev.\u0026amp;'82) . _.  ..... : .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 36 of 74 . ' VI. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A. Burden of Proof. I. Section 11 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Plan (CX 871) explicitly provided that \"any party challenging LRSD's [substantial] compliance [with its desegregation obligations] bears the burden of proof.\" Because Joshua was the \"challenging party\" in the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, I held that Joshua had the burden of proof in establishing that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its desegregation obligations in each of the challenged areas. LRSD, 237 F. Supp.2d at 1033-35. Ultimately, Joshua met their burden of proof only with regard to LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. The Compliance Remedy required LRSD to fulfill its obligations uncler- 2.1 l of with my judicial remedy- not the previously litigated question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. 3. While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Pl:i no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 494 (1992); Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,318 (4th Cir. 200l);Jenkins v. Missouri, 216 F.3d 720, 725 (8111 Cir. 2000). Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C -36- A072A (Rev.8182) Case-4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 37 of 74 of the. Compliance Remedy. B. LRSD's Efforts to Substantially Comply with Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. 1. Tiu-oughout this litigation, standardized test scores have revealed that the academic achievement of a high percentage of LRSD's African-American students lags far behind their . white counterparts. In the September 13 Decision, I discussed this \"achievement gap\" at some length and summarized LRSD's efforts to narrow this gap by implementing dozens of 2.7 programs, between 1998 and March of200 l, that were designed to remediate African~American achievement. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp.2d at 1070-72. 2. Importantly, in the September 13 Decision, I rejected Joshua's argument that 2. 7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap between African-American and white students.31 As a result, 1 found that the disparity in standardized test scores between African-American and white students--while \"far from where they need to be--failed to prove that LRSD has not lived up to its obligations under 2.7 of the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1017. 3. Of even greater importance, however, I also found that 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan ,,..-- required LRSD to assess ann allY, each of the key 2.7 p ograms des!~ American achievement in order to ensure that those programs are effective. It is impossible to overstate the importance of 2.7. l to LRSD's African-American students. Un1ess something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills 31During the May 1996 hearings in this case, Dr. Walberg, Dr. Armor, and Dr. Orfield, three nationally recognized experts in desegregation litigation, testified at length about the numerous causes for this achievement gap. Both Dr. Armor and Dr. Walberg testified that the socioeconomic differences between many African-Americans and whites make it virtually impossible for schools to eliminate the achievement gap. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 073-74. -37- A072A (Rev.8/82) . . . ... ~ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 38 of 74 in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African-American, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentageofits educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, not because a federal court says that it must, but because it is the right thing to do. 4. In the September 13 Decision; I held that: (a) ~RSD's efforts to comply with  2. 7. l of the Revised Plan had fallen well short of the mark; (b) LRSD's obligations under 2. 7 .1 were \"crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students\"; and (c) Court supervision and monitoring of LRSD must continue until it complies with \"this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program\" that is capable of determining not only the specific  2. 7 programs that are most effective, but also the programs that n\u0026lt;.,-ed to be improved or eliminated. Id. at 1017, 1086. I find that the clear language of the September 13 Decision made it plain that I expected LRSD to devote all of the time and resources necessary to comply with the spirit and letter of the commitment con~ed in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I further find thatLRSD knew, or certainly should have known, that, in order to honor its commitment under 2.7.1, it was required to evaluate the key  2. 7 programs. 5. Subpart A of the Compliance Remedy provides that LRSD must devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American students. Because LRSD's battle to improve the academic achievement of African-American -38- A072A (Rev.B/82) Case4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004  Page 39 of 74 students may go on for many years, the comprehensive process for assessing  2. 7 programs must become a deeply embedded part ofLRSD 's elementary and secondary curriculum. OnJy then can I have the necessary assurance that LRSD will dutifully continue the comprehensive program assessment process (which also must include periodic program evaluations) until the need for  2.7 programs no longer exists. I asswned-1 now realize incorrectly-that LRSD would recognize that part of its burden of proof would include demonstrating that an effective program assessment process has been implemented and deeply embedd~ in its curriculum. 6. Because the  2.7.1 program assessment process must be an essential part of LRSD's curriculum for the foreseeable future, I thought LRSD would understand that it must hire a highly qualified Assistant Superintendent to replace Dr. Lease as the head of its Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and reinvigorate PRE with a team of highly trained professionals capable of devising a systematic process for assessing the  2.7 programs; identifying the key 2.7 programs that required evaluations and overseeing the preparation of those evaluations; making annual determinations about the effectiveness of the 2.7 programs; and structuring and implementing the required changes in those programs in order to make them more effective. LRSD did not.~d a qualified replacement for Dr. Lease, and it allowed its PRE to cease operating as a viable department; so, LRSD did not formulate an effective program assessment process, and did not deeply embed that process as part of its curriculum. 7. During the recent compliance hearing, the evidence established that, after Dr. Lesley's departure, LRSD failed to hire someone with similar qualifications and extensive experience in preparing and analyzing program evaluations to serve in the crucially important position of Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. Mr. Glasgow, the acting -39- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82~~v-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 40 of 74 Associate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, admitted that PRE was \"short on personnel\" at the present time and that he intended to propose to the Board that it set a high priority on hiring a team of well qualified and experienced professionals capable of reinvigorating PRE. In addition to hiring a new director of PRE, Mr. Glasgow testified that LRSD needed to hire a \"research specialist\" with extensive experience in preparing and overseeing preparation of program evaluations. Th.is is something it should have done immediately after I entered the September 13 Decision. This would have allowed LRSD to use its PRE Department to oversee the preparation of the key 2.7 program assessments by outside consultants, such as Dr. Ross, and to perform the \"heavy lifting\" necessary to deeply embed an effective program assessment process as a pertinent part of LRSD's curriculum for the foreseeable future. 8. LRSD should have included in its program assessment process everything necessary for it to make an informed decision about whether each of the key 2.7 programs designed to improve African-American achievement was actually working to accomplish that objective. Wliite l am not a professional educator, common sense dictates that some of the more important elements of an effective program assessment process should include the following: ( a) program evaluati,ons specifically designed to detennine whether key  2. 7 programs, as implemented, are actually working at each school to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; (b) input from a broad cross section of the teachers responsible for implementing each of the key 2. 7 programs-about the effectiveness of these programs at their respective schools and whether a  2.7 program should be modified or eliminated; (c) an assessment of whether each of the key 2. 7 programs is being implemented with the same degree of effectiveness and success at each participating school; (~) an assessment of whether more -40- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 41 of 7 4 teaching specialists or other personnel are needed at some schools in order to enhance the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program; and (e) administering consistent standardized tests at various grade levels so that the academic achievement of African-American students can be accurately followed, and valid statistics can be compiled regarding their year to year academic achievement. 9. In the Compliance Remedy, I was reluctant to set forth too much detail about how LRSD should structure its program assessment process. Professional educators ought to be able to do a better job than I could in formulating and implementing this process; but LRSD is found wanting in its handling of its duties under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. 10. LRSD did not follow the plain language of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, and I find this quite puzzling. In any event, it prepared two \"comprehensive\" evaluations that covered only some of the  2. 7 programs and that reflected--at some grade levels and on some tests--an improvement in the achievement level of African-American students in the areas of literacy, math, and science. Somehow, LRSD concluded that those two global evaluations would be sufficient to prove the effectiveness of each of the key  2. 7 programs, as they have been actually implemented, and to ~tisfy me that it had in place a deeply embedded and effective  2.7. I program assessment process. l l. Having reviewed a mountain of test score results from 1998 through the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, it appears to me that most of LRSD's testing data is highly variable. At some grade levels, in some years, there is improvement, and at other grade levels, in other years, test scores decline. In dealing with a problem that is as challenging as narrowing the achievement gap, such an ebb and flow of test scores over only a few years should come as -41- A072A (Rev.8/82). Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 42 of 74 no-surprise. That is why I believe it is so important for LRSD to deeply embed an effective  2. 7. I program assessment process in its curriculum and then make certain it has a team of highly trained specialists administering that process for years to come. LRSD should pay close attention to the next point: If it were to implement, properly staff. and deeply embed an effective 2. 7.1 program assessment process, LRSD could still prove that it had substantially complied with its obligations under  2. 7 .1 and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy-even if test results did not establish that there had been much, if any, improvement in the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican stud~ts. This is because 2.7'.1 does not require an improvement in the academic achievement of African-American students--it requires only that LRSD have in place an effective and deeply embedded program assessment process that is capable of assessing the effectiveness of its key 2.7 programs. 12. I find LRSD's Literacy Program Evaluation (ails to substantially comply with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. I further find some of the most significant deficiencies in this Evaluation to be as follows: (a) LRSD's Compliance Plan32 provided that: LRSD will: . . . (4) Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program .. . . (Emphasis added.) The Literacy Evaluation does not evaluate each  2. 7 academic program implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in the area ofliteracy, much less analyze ''whether to 32See docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3; LRSD's Exhibit No. 2. -42- A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 43 of 74 No.2. (b) modify or replace\" any of those programs. Regulation ILR 1 provided that any  2. 7. l program evaluation must answer the following research question: \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" See docket no. 3865, Appendix 2 at 5.33 The Regulation went on to state that this research question was required to be included in any  2.7.1 program evaluation based on: \"Po,icy IL,  2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.\" Id. at 5. Incredibly, the research questions set forth on page I of the Literacy Program Evaluation do not include this essential research question. During the compliance hearing, Dr.-Ross testified that, read together, research questions 2 through 6 were . aimed at getting at the same information sought in the one essential research question that was required by Regulation IL-Rt. Nevertheless, as Dr. Ross conceded, he should have included that research question in the Literacy Program Evaluation in order to comply with Regulation IL-R 1.34 (c) Regulation IL-RI explicitly required the \"team leader\" of the 2.7.1 program evaluation to write \"a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule for its implementation.\" 33During the recent compliance hearing, this docwnent was introduced as Joshua's Exhibit 341n Dr. Ross's defense, he testified that he had little, if any, communication withLRSD's staff members or administrators after he was hired to prepare the Literacy Evaluation. Thus, it is unclear whether he was provided with a copy of Regulation IL-RI, or otherwise advised ofits purpose and requirements. -43- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 44 of 74 Id. at 5. The_ Literacy Program Evaluation does not sufficiently _identify the specific  2. 7 programs that are covered by the evaluation - a direct violation of Regulation IL-Rl. At the elementary school level (grades K-5), the Literacy Program Evaluation cites .. results\" from five programs: (a) Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (\"ELLA\") for grades K through 2; (b) Effective Literacy for grades 3 through 5; (c) Signature Reading Series for grades 1 through 5; (d) Reading Recovery for 1st graders; and (e) Success For All (\"SFA\") for grades K through 5. Id. at 10.35 At the middle school level (grades 6-9), the Evaluation states only that \"all grades participated in Reading and Writing Workshop concepts [whatever that means],\" without indicating whether \"Reading and Writing Workshop\" was a 2.7 program or whether there were any other 2.7 programs designed to improve the literacy of African-American middle school students. Id. at 11 . Finally, at the hlgh school level (grades 9-12), the Evaluation merely cites \"block scheduling of English classes to accommodate different levels of learners . .. and teacher professional development . based on national research findi~gs, trends, and issues in literacy development [whatever that means].\" Dr. Ross conceded that these program descriptions were \"amorphous.\" While Dr. Ross and LRSD administrators may know what these descriptions mean, I do not. Thus, I am left to guess at whether I should consider \"block scheduling of English classes\" and \"teacher professional development\" as a 2. 7 35 As indicated previously, LRSD has never provided me with a list of all of its  2. 7 literacy programs. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if these were the only 2.7 literacy programs implemented at the elementary school level. -44- - - -- - - A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 45 of 74 program and wonder if there were any other  2.7 programs that LRSD implemented to improve the literacy of African-American high school students. In the future, LRSD should keep in mind that its program evaluations ofkey  2.7 programs need to be written in such a way that they not only comply with Regulation IL-RI, but also are readily understandable to me. (d) In the \"Summary and Conclusions\" section, Dr. Ross cites a number of negative comments about the overall effectiveness of LRSD's literacy program. For example, LRSD elementary teachers said in interviews that some of the most effective  2.7 reading programs, such as ELLA and Effective Literacy, were \"often perceived as separate and distinct entities instead of integral to the district comprehensive literacy program.\" Id. at 43. Furthermore, the authors noted that: (1) \"middle school and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they had as English teachers\"; and (2) \"teachers' perceptions of the impact ofliteracy programs were extremely mixed.\" Id. (e) Finally, Regul~tion IL--Rl required LRSD to provide regular \"progress reports\" on the Program Evaluations to \"stakeholders,\" including the ODM and Joshua. See Joshua's Exhibit No. 2 at 5; docket no. 3864, Exhibit A, Appendix 1 at 5. During the evidentiary hearing, the testimony establishe\u0026lt;I that LRSD failed to provide the ODM and Joshua with any\"progress reports\" on the Literacy Program Evaluation as required by Regulation IL-RI. 13. I find LRSD'.s Math and Science Evaluation also falls short of substantial -45- A072A (Rev.8182} Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 46 of 74 compliance with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The more obvious deficiencies in this Evaluation are as follows: (a) As indicated previously, LRSD's Compliance Plan specifically obligate\u0026lt;J it to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program ' implemented pursuant to Re~sed Plan 2. 7 in order to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\"36 To meet this requirement of its own Compliance Plan, LRSD was obligated to: ( J) identify each of the key  2.7 math and science programs that were in place during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; and (2) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each of those academic programs. In violation ofits own Compliance Plan, LRSD prepared a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation that examined \"areas of knowledge\"--not specific  2.7 programs. Furthermore, the Evaluation makes no attempt to analyze which of the  2.7 math and science programs need to be modified; the nature of the modifications that should be made; and whether any of those programs should be eliminated and replaced with the more effective programs. (b) The Math and Science Evaluation lists \"Milestones\" in implementing the \"educational system reforms\" but only a few  2.7 programs are specifically identified, e.g., the Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training Program (\"SMART''), THRIVE, a Saturday math academy implemented in collaboration 36See docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3. -46- A072A (Rev.8/82) .. . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 47 of 74 with Philander Smith, SECME, a program for students interested in engineering, and unspecified \"additional support programs in collaboration with the Arkansas Musewn of Discovery, UALR, and UAMS.\" See Exhibit G at 6-9 (docket no. 3837). Furthermore, one of the ''Milestones\" is described as the implementation of a \"high quality standard-base curricula for all students, grades K-12, in math and science.\" Id. at 9 ( emphasis added). After carefully reviewing the long list of \"Milestones,\" I find that the Math and Science ~valuation was intended to cover all curriculum changes made to LRSD's math and science programs - not the specific  2.7 programs that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science. Ms. Vanessa Cleaver, the former Project Director of the Comprehensive Partnership for Math and Science Achievement, testified that LRSD prepared the Math and Science Evaluation according to NSF evaluation standards, which differed from those contained in Regulation IL-RI. She also testified that LRSD  prepared the Math and Science Evaluation to satisfy the requirements of the NSF grant. I find ~e purpose and objective of the NSF grant were not the same as subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Thus, LRSD should not have assumed that satisfying the requirements of the NSF grant would automatically satisfy the requirements of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. (c) The Math and Science Evaluation C()nsists primarily of an analysis of test scores demonstrating that LRSD has made some progress: (I) in increasing the number of African-American students who  have moved from the Below Basic -47- A072A (Rev.B/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 F1ied 06/30/2004 Page 48 of 74 (d) Achievement Level in math and science to the Basic Achievement Level; and (2) increasing the enrollment of African-American students in more rigorous math and science courses. However, much less progress has been made in increasing the number of African-American students who are achieving at or above the Proficient Level in math and science. The only statistically supportable conclusion that can be drawn from this Evalu;ttion is that LRSD appears to be doing \"something\" right in its math and science_ curriculum because a significant nwnber of African-American students have moved from the Below Basic Level to the Basic Level in math and science. However, the Math and Science Evaluation makes no attempt to address, much Jess answer, the essential questions that LRSD's own Regulation IL-RI required it to answer: Which specific 2.7 programs are actually working and most effective in improving the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science? What changes need to be made to improve those programs? What programs are not effective and should be eliminated? In her testimony, Ms. Cleaver admitted that the primary focus of the ~ath and Science Evaluation was on a statistical analysis of test scores-not a determination of the effectiveness of specific  2. 7 programs such as THRIVE and SMART. Finally, Ms. Cleaver acknowledged that the Math and Science Evaluation did not address the effectiveness of the.new math and science curriculum, as it had been implemented at each school, in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Stanford Achievement Test is a .. norm referenced\" test, which means that it -48- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 49 of 74 compares the achievement of Arkansas students with a national sample of students who took the same exam. As a result, scores are based on national performance quartiles. Thus, if a fifth grade student perf onns at the 20th percentile in math on the Stanford Achievement Test, it means 80% of the fifth grade students in the country exceeded his or her performance. In contrast, the state Benchmark Exam is a \"criterion-referenced\" test that was created for use within Arkansas to measure students' mastery of state math and literacy standards. Performance on the Benchmark Exam is measured in four broad categories: Below Basic; Basic; Proficient; and Advanced. According to Mr. Glasgow, students who perform at the Below Basic level have a very limited understanding of the concepts being tested. Mr. Glasgow also testified that it was much easier to improve student test scores on the state Benchmark Exam than on a national \"norm referenced\" test like the Stanford Achievement Test. It is possible to devise a statistically defensible \"equating formula\" to allow educators to compare percentiles of performance among \"nonn referenced\" tests. However, in the Math and Science Evaluation, the ~uthors take the extraordinary statistical liberty of trying to convert quartiles of performance on the \"norm referenced\" Stanford Achievement Test into the four much different categories of performance that are measured on the \"criterion-referenced\" Benchmark Exam. Furthermore, this appears to have been done to create the false impression that African-American students have improved their performance on the Stanford Achievement Test. In my experience, you can't mix apples and oranges and then claim you've got tangerines. I find the charts -49- A072A (Aev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 50 of 74 and data that are displayed on pages 49-55 to be of no statistical value in determining whether African-American students have improved their level of performance on the Stanford Achievement Test. ( e) Finally, I find that LRSD failed to provide regular \"progress reports\" on the Math and Science Evaluation to the ODM and Joshua, as required by Regulation IL-RI . See docket no. 3864, Exhibit A, Appendix 1 at 5. 14. Dr. Ross testified that his Literacy Evaluation~ which he referred -to as a \"big picture\" evaluation, was the necessary first step in complying with LRSD's obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. According to Dr. Ross, the global Literacy Evaluation reached a narrow but very important conclusion: The various  2. 7 literacy programs, which are described on pages 10-11 and 34, are equally \"effective\" or \"ineffective\" in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. As Dr. Ross explained, \"beauty is in the eye of the beholder.\" Therefore, some readers of the Literacy Evaluation might conclude that the relatively modest improvement in African-American test scores was sufficient to deem those programs \"effective,\" while other readers might conclude, based upon the same data, that they were \"ineffective.\" Most importantly, however, Dr. Ross testified that his statistical analysis demonstrated that none of the 2. 7 programs aimed at improving literacy produced an unhealthy outcome for African-American students. By unhealthy outcome, Dr. Ross meant that the test scores for African-American students did not go down. 15. Dr. Ross made it clear that it is now crucially important for LRSD to take the second step and perform program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the specific 2. 7 literacy programs as they have been implemented at each of the schools in the district. He -50- A072A (Rev.8182) .,. .- . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 51 -6(74  testified that the step 2 evaluations were necessary and essential in order for LRSD to determine: (a) whether, as implemented, on a school-by-school basis, the key 2.7 programs were effective in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) whether any program changes needed to be made to improve the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs as they were being implemented at each school. Dr. Ross testified that, without these step 2 evaluations, LRSD cannot continue .to make progress in improving the scores of AfricanAmerican students on the Arkansas Benchmark Exam and the_Stanford Achievement Test. 16. In the 2001 -02 unitary status hearings, the evidence established that LRSD has a number of elementary schools in which the students are entirely or almost ' entirely AfricanAmerican. Likewise, some ofLRSD's middle schools and high schools have a disproportionately high number of African-American students compared with other middle schools and high schools. Only by performing these step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs, as they have been implemented on a school-by-school basis, will LRSD be able to determine their effectiveness at the classroom level. Because that is where \"the rubber meets the road,\" I find the data that will be gained from these step 2 evaluations is a vital and essential part of LRSD's assessment obligation under  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. 17. Dr. Lesley testifie\u0026lt;;I that, because each of the key  2.7 programs that LRSD implemented had already been found to be successful in improving the academic achievement of African-American students in other school districts where those programs were pioneered and developed (e.g., the Chicago School District and.the Washington D.C. School District), there was no need to perform step 2 evaluations of the effectiveness of those programs, as implemented in LRSD. However, Dr. Ross testified that his own extensive experience in evaluating virtually -51- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 52 of 74 .. a ,   identical programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in different school districts revealed that some programs work well in one district but fail in another. Furthermore, Dr. Ross indicated his own personal experiences with the highly variable success rates of the same programs implemented in different school districts was borne out by all of the research and studies on the subject. Thus, the ELLA literacy program might work in LRSD but fail to achieve results in the Memphis School District. I find Dr. Ross's testimony on this point to be authoritative and credible. I reject Dr. Lesley's testimony that \"one size fits all\" and that it can be taken on faith that, ifLRSD implements a literacy program which was proven to be highly effective in the Washington D.C. elementary schools, the program can be assumed to be equally effective as implemented in LRSD. 18. Dr. Lesley also testified that. in order to meet its obligations under 2.7.l and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, she believed LRSD was required to perform only annual informal program assessments. She testified that, at the time she left LRSD in March of 2003, she and other LRSD administrators were fully capable of assessing test data, interviewing teachers, and coming up with an informal assessment or evaluation of which 2. 7 programs were effective and which were not. Even if Dr. Lesley had remained with LRSD, I would have serious doubts about the value and reliability of such informal assessments or evaluations. However, after Dr. Lesley resigned in March of 2003, there is no evidence that any ofLRSD's remaining administrators had the experience or training to perform such informal assessments or evaluations. 19. Dr. Ross was emphatic in testifying that LRSD must perform formal evaluations . . of the key  2. 7 programs as implemented--not informal \"assessments\" or informal program -52- \\072A Aev.8/82)  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 53 of 74 evaluations. He testified that it is easy for \"informal evaluations\" never to be perfonned, or, worse yet, result in bad statistical analysis that leads a school district to claim test score improvements that, in reality, do not exist. 20. LRSD's counsel asked Mr. Glasgow, the interim Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, if he agree.d that requiring African-American students to take more rigorous academic courses was the most effective way to improve African-American achievement. . Obviously, counsel expected a \"yes\" answer, but Mr. Glasgow responded ''No.\" He testified that the single best way to improve the academic achievement of African-American students was to evaluate, on a school-by-school basis, the effectiveness of specific  2. 7 programs, as they have been implemented at the classroom level. By way of example, Mr. Glasgow referred to Reading for All, one of the key  2. 7 literacy programs. Mr. Glasgow testified that, because deviations existed from school to school in the way in which that program had been implemented, some students--at some schoo]s--may have been helped more by that program than students at other schools where it had not been implemented with the same degree of success. Thus, Mr. Glasgow's testimony strongly supported Dr. Ross's testimony that the step 2 program evaluations were a necessary part of LRSD's program assessment obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. 21. I find that Dr. Ross is a well-qualified expert in preparing program evaluations and that he has extensive knowledge about programs and strategies that schools can implement to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that Dr. Ross 's testimony was both infonnative and credible regarding the Literacy Evaluation that he prepared. According to Dr. Ross, he was instructed to prepare the comprehensive Literacy Evaluation but -53- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 54 of 74  then had very little, if any, substantive contact with LRSD's compliance team regarding his work on that evaluation. Dr. Ross indicated that he was disappointed by LRSD's lack of participation in the Literacy Evaluation. 22. I do not put much stock in Dr. Lesley's testimony at this last hearing. (Her testimony in the unitary status hearings in 2001 was quite helpful.) Her answers to pointed questions were often indirect and marked py semantics. I got the distinct impression that she wanted to avoid giving answers that would be harmful to LRSI\u0026gt;'s position. In his preparation of one or more of the Page 148 Evaluations, Dr. Ross advised Dr. Lesley that she was improperly using test score results to reach unsupportably favorable conclusions about improvements in African-American achievement. Dr. Lesley t~tified that, after Dr. Ross called this matter to her attention, she ''toned down\" some of her statistical conclusions. Yet, in the compliance hearing, Dr. Lesley hailed the Literacy Evaluation's data on the improvement in African-American test scores as a cause for great celebration. Dr. Ross, however, made it clear that, while AfricanAmerican students at some grade levels had made modest improvements on the state Benchmark Exam, very little progress had been made in improving African-American achievement in the ''norm referenced\" Stanford Achievement Test. In other words, there is no cause for great celebration on this point, at this time. 23. As I have repeatedly emphasized, LRSD's Compliance Plan interpreted subpart . A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program.\" See. docket no. 3745, Exhibit A at 3 (emphasis -54- A072A (Aev.8182) . . . - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 55 of 74 added). I find it impossible to construe LRSD's specific obligation to prepare a comprehensive program evaluation .on .. each academic program\" to now mean that LRSD was only required to evaluate two broad areas of learning: \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science.\" 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 AH, 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. 24. I find it relevant that, as early as October 10, 2002, less than thirty days after I entered the September 13 Decision, LRSD's Compliance Plan construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare \"comprehensive evaluations of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 1\"-not \"comprehensive evaluations of Literacy and Math and Science.\" lfLRSD believed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy imposed on it obligations that went beyond  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan, it should have appealed that issue to the Eighth Circuit. It is too late in the game for LRSD to cry foul, and contend that its own construction of subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, as set forth in its own Compliance Plan, is too onerous, and goes beyond its original o~Jigations in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. 25. Dr. Ross's ''big picture evaluation\" ofliteracy test score results has established that, on balance, none of the  2.7 programs have produced any \"unhealthy outcomes\" for African-American students. Thus, I find that LRSD has taken the first step required by subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Having received this \"good news\" from Dr. Ross 's global Literacy Evaluation, LRSD is now in a position to complete its obligation under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy by preparing step 2 evaluations of each of the key  2. 7 programs, as they -55- \\072A Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 56 of 74 have actually been implemented, in order to determine their effectiveness and the changes and modifications that may need to be made to improve their effectiveness. 26. Finally, Dr. Ross testified that large urban school districts in Chicago an~ Washington D. C. sometimes perform ten or more step 2 program evaluations each year. While he conceded that it would be unrealistic to expect a district the size of LRSD to perform that many program evaluations, Dr. Ross testified that, in his opinion, it was reasonable to expect LRSD to perform four or five step 2 program evaluations each year in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of its African-American students. 27. IfLRSD had implemented and deeply embedded an effective program assessment process in the 2002-03 school year, assembled a highly qualified team of professionals to oversee that process, prepared the big picture step 1 evaluations of its Literacy and Math and Science programs, and four or five step 2 evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs, with the intention of continuing to perform such evaluations annually for the foreseeable future, I would have had no difficulty concluding that it had met its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy. Unfortunately, because almost none of these things were accomplished, I must conclude that LRSD has failed to establish_ a legally sufficient evidentiazy basis for finding that it has substantially complied with its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy'. 28. Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each  2. 7 program. These written records were required to include the following: (a) the criteria that LRSD used to assess each 2.7 program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; and (b) the .. results of the annual assessment of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program -56- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 57of 74 modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. Proposed Regulation IL-R2, which was never approved by the Board, appears to have been designed to satisfy the requirements of subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. According to Proposed Regulation IL-R2, anytime LRSD significantly modified an academic program in \"English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies,\" it was required to: ( a) explain in writing the decision to significantly modify the academic program; (b) set forth \"the written criteria used to evaluate the program\" in which the changes ar,e to be made; and (c) summarize \"the student assessment data [test results] on which the decision was based [to modify the program].\" See docket no. 3865, Exhibit A, Appendix 2 at l. If LRSD had approved, implemented, and complied with Proposed Regulation II-R2, it might havesubstantiallycomplied with its obligations under subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. 29. The evidence established that LRSD failed to maintain any of the separate written records on each of the  2. 7 programs that were required by subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. Instead, LRSD attached to its Compliance Report three documents that contain a confusing compilation of random changes in various vaguely described academic programs during the 2001-02, 2002-03, iUld 2003-04 school years. See docket no. 3837, Exhibits C, D, and E. The programs are not well enough described so that I can determine which of th.em are  2. 7 programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. Furthermore, while Exhibits C, D, and E catalogue numerous changes that were made to the vaguely identified programs, they contain no explanation of how each of the changes will increase the effectiveness of the programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Thus, I find that Exhibits C, D, and E to LRSD's Compliance Report fall well -57- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 58 of 74 short of substantially complying with the requirements of subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. C. LRSD's Efforts to Comply with Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, 1. On page 148-ofits March 15, 2001 Compliance Report, LRSD erroneously stated that its PRE Department had prepared Program Evaluations on fourteen listed programs. See docket no. 3410 at 148. It is unclear how LRSD determined that it was necessary to prepare these fourteen Page 148 Evaluations in order to satisfy its obligations under 2. 7 .1 of the ~evised Plan. Furthennore, at least one of the listed programs, English as a Second Language (\"ELS\"), clearly is not a  2. 7 program. I do not understand how LRSD came to believe that it was required to evaluate an ELS program in order to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. However, even ifLRSD had properly completed all fourteen of the Page 148 Evaluations, I still would have held, for the other reasons enumerated in the September 13 Decision, that it had failed to substantially comply with its obligations under  2. 7. I of the Revised Plan. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at I 076-82. 2. In subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to complete and file the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations to send a clear message that I expected LRSD to honor all of its comrnitments--even if it now meant preparing evaluations that would be of little or no use in assessing the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs, Because I was requiring LRSD, retrospectively, to prepare the fourteen program evaluations that it should have completed on or before March 15, 2001, I expected LRSD to use only the data that would have been available through that date. However, I also knew that, under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was required to formulate and implement a comprehensive program assessment process and then use it to assess each of the key 2. 7 programs, using the most recent data available from the 2002-03 and 2003- -58- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 59 of 74 04 school years. Thus, I viewed the comprehensive program assessments LRSD was required to prepare under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy-not the Page 148 Evaluations-as the touchstones that LRSD would use to determine the effectiveness of each of the key  2. 7 programs. 3. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that the Court ''will accept all [Page 148 Evaluations] that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board.\" See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. LRSD had completed or substantially completed six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. These six evaluations covered the following programs: ( a) Pre-K-3 Literacy; (b) NSF Math and Science Project;37 (c) Charter Schools; (d) ELS; (e) SEDL Program at Southwest Middle School; and (f) Collaborative Action Team Project. By the end of December, 2002, LRSD's Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. 4. On March 14, 2003, LRSD filed these six program evaluations with the Court. See Volumes I and II (docket no. 3745). The ODM's Compliance Report contains no significant substantive criticism of these evaluations. See ODM's Compliance Report at 20 (docket no. 3854). Similarly, Joshua's objections to these six evaluations are primarily confined to alleged shortcomings such .as a failure to \"properly disaggregate data,\" or overstating the positive conclusions that might fairly be drawn from some of the data presented. See Joshua's Comments on the Page 148 Evaluations at 3-5 (docket no. 3752). 37This evaluation included data and test scores from school years 1998-99 through 2000- 01. See Volume II (docket no. 3745). -59- A072A (Rev.8/82) ------- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 60 of 74 5. Of the eight remaining Page 148 Evaluations, LRSD had discontinued four of the programs by the time I entered the September 13 Decision. Thus, the Page 148 Evaluations on LRSD's Elementary Summer School Program, the Lyceum Scholars Program, the Onward to Excellence Program at Watson Elementary, and the Vital Link Program were utterly useless in determining the effectiveQess of any of the ongoing 2. 7 programs. Because these four Page 148 Evaluations are essentially\"obituaries\" on discontinued programs, I find the ODM's and Joshua's criticism of these evaluations falls squarely in the category of\"beating a dead horse.\" 6. The last four Page 148 Evaluations cover Middle School Implementation, Extended Year Schools, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams. See Volumes ill and IV ( docket no. 3 7 45). While these four evaluations could be improved, I find they are adequate to fulfill the limited purpose for which they were prepared. 7. As previously stated, I never expected for any of the Page 148 Evaluations to be of much, if any, use to LRSDin assessingtheeffectivenessofthecurrent  2.7 programs. Rather, I required LRSD to prepare those evaluations to fulfiJI the promises it made in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. For that reason, any flaws in the Page 148 Evaluations are oflittle, if any, substantive importance in determining the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs. 8. As previously discussed, after LRSD rested its case in the compliance hearing, I granted Joshua's Rule 52(c) Motion with respect to LRSD's proof that it had complied with its obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. Joshua then withdrew its chaHenge to LRSD's evidence that it had substantially complied with subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. Thus, based upon Joshua's withdrawal of their challenge to LRSD's compliance with subpart C, and my own independent findings on the merits of that compliance -60- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 61 of 74 issue, I conclude LRSD has substantially complied with subpart C of the Compliance Remedy and is released from all further supervision and monitoring with regard to tho$e obligations. VII. Compliance Remedy 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 38 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 experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 18By \"promptly hire,\" I mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. -61- A072A (Rev.8/82) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 62 of 74 B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.39 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-Arnerican 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. 39By \"comprehensive program assessment process,\" I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key 2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to include preparing informal program assessments that in~olve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations of test scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term \"assessment\" to mean \"testing.\" -62- A072A (Rev.81B2) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 63 of 74 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) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these fonnal 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 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 to prepare those evaluations. 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 \"For a detailed discussion of what I mean by \"step 2 evaluations,\" see paragraphs 14 through 26, supra, at 51-56. -63- - ------- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 64 of 74 E. 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: (l) 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. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, 41 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 : (I) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was r~ved 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 _ 41Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy in the September 13 Decision required LRSD to maintain certain written records regarding its assessment of each of the key 2. 7 programs. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD had considerable difficulty compiling and properly maintaining those written records. -64- A072A (Rev.8182) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 3875 Fil    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_1765","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua intervenrs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, 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":["2004-06"],"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","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua intervenrs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, 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/1765"],"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   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the compliance remedy; District Court, combined Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; 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.    IJ\\T 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 KJ--fIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUN - 8 2004 orr,.1~r!ilf DESEGREiiAk,, .,/i~~mmtro LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAIJ\\TTIFF DEFENDANTS IJ\\TTERVENORS IJ\\TTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDIJ\\TGS OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: Proposed Findings of Fact 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court found that LRSD had substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan except with respect to  2. 7 .1 of that Plan. The Court therefore declared that LRSD is a unitary school district in all other respects but set forth a compliance remedy to address LRSD's failure to substantially comply with  2.7.1. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002. 2. LRSD promptly developed a proposed Compliance Plan designed to assure its compliance with the Court's compliance remedy. LRSD provided this proposed Compliance Plan to all counsel in the case and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on October 4, 2002. The Page 1 of 10 LRSD Board approved the Compliance Plan on October 10, 2002. The Compliance Plan addresses - each aspect of the Compliance Remedy. 3. LRSD received responses from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and from the Joshua Intervenors concerning its proposed compliance plan. OD M's response, dated October 10, 2002, was in the fom1 of\"observations and questions.\" LRSD responded to each observation and question on October 11 , 2002 in a letter from LRSD lawyer Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD provided a detailed response to Joshua's concerns in a letter dated October 25 , 2002 from Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD concluded its response to Joshua with the following paragraph: 4. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD' s written response to alleged non-compliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students.\" LRSD met this requirement by preparing comprehensive evaluations of its elementary and secondary literacy programs, and its mathematics and science programs in accordance with its Compliance Plan. 5. Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD maintain certain written records regarding its assessment of each program, including the written criteria used to assess each program, the results of the annual assessments of each program, and the names of the administrators who were involved in the assessment of each program.\" LRSD has maintained the required records in accordance with its Compliance Plan and much of the required information is set forth in the text Page 2 of 10 of the literacy and the mathematics and science evaluations. 6. Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy requires that \"LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The Court held that \"all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board\" were acceptable. The deadline for preparation and approval by the LRSD Board of these program evaluations was March 15, 2003 . LRSD was required to use the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement and in determining whether modifications to the programs should be made. 7. LRSD determined that the following evaluations were prepared with the help of outside experts and that, following Board approval, they would be acceptable to the Court: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. These program evaluations have now been approved by the LRSD Board of Directors. 8. On November 4, 2002, Dr. Lesley reported to the LRSD Board, counsel for Joshua and ODM the status of LRSD's work to implement its compliance plan. Dr. Lesley noted that on October 24, 2002 the Board approved the 1999-2000 and 2001 PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which was completed with the assistance of Dr. Ross, and the 2000-01 Charter School Program Evaluation, which was completed by Dr. Larry McNeal. Joshua and ODM received copies of all of those evaluations. Dr. Lesley also provided to Joshua and ODM copies of the Collaborative Action Team Evaluation and the Southwest Middle School's SEDL Evaluation. Page 3 of 10 9. On December 3, 2002, Dr. Lesley wrote to counsel for Joshua and to ODM to let - them know that the Board would consider approval of the mathematics and science evaluations for the years 1998 through 2002 on December 19, 2002. Dr. Lesley provided copies of the program evaluation documents to Joshua and ODM. Dr. Lesley also reported to Joshua and ODM that, by the end of December 2002, six of the fourteen program evaluations listed on page 148 of LRSD 's Final Compliance Report will have been approved. 10. In accordance with LRSD's Compliance Plan, the remammg eight program evaluations listed on page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report were to be completed with the help of outside experts. Those evaluations are Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams, Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. 11 . LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, a program evaluation expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors, to prepare guidelines for the completion or revision of these eight evaluations. In late November, 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document called \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.\" Dr. Ross also consulted with Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, consultants who were selected to complete some of the eight program evaluations. See Agreement for Contracted Services between LRSD and Dr. Ross dated January 10, 2003. 12. In accordance with the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross, Dr. Moore completed evaluations concerning the Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education; Dr. McNeal completed evaluations concerning Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School; and Dr. Ross completed evaluations concerning Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY and Campus Leadership Teams. Page 4 of 10 13 . All fifteen of the \"page 148\" Program Evaluations were approved by the LRSD Board - of Directors and were submitted to the Court on March 14, 2003 in accordance with paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 14. Some of \"page 148\" evaluations were of limited use to LRSD for various reasons explained by Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley. For example, some of the programs had already been discontinued and the data available for some of the other programs provided a greater risk of producing a misleading evaluation result than a useful one. LRSD made the best use it could of the evaluations completed by outside experts in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. 15. Paragraphs D and E of the Compliance Remedy require Joshua and ODM to monitor LRSD' s compliance with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Joshua was also required to follow the requirements of 8 of the Revised Plan: Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with  2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD 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. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002, p. 172. (emphasis in original) 16. On November 1, 2002, Joshua invoked the procedure set forth in  8.2.4 of the Revised Plan regarding the adequacy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua presented the following arguments: a. LRSD was not planning to evaluate all of the programs it had identified to fulfill the requirements of 2.7; Page 5 of 10 b. C. The Pre-K-2 Literacy Program evaluation was not adequate for submission to the LRSD Board for approval; LRSD's plan for revising and completing the \"page 148\" evaluations was inconsistent with policy IL-Rl ; d. LRSD should not use its Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) or obsen1ation survey as it had in previous evaluations because those are administered by teachers who have a potential conflict of interest; e. LRSD's external consultants should write the comprehensive program evaluations in order to avoid a conflict of interest inherent in internal program evaluations; f. Careful consideration should be given to implementation ofremediation activities as a part of the program evaluation process. 17. ODM responded on November 4, 2002 that the ODM associate monitor responsible for monitoring program evaluation in the LRSD was unavailable due to injuries suffered in an accident and that ODM would assist with facilitation of the dispute upon his return. The facilitation process began with a meeting at ODM on February 7, 2003. The second and last facilitation meeting was held February 28, 2003. Following that meeting, LRSD's lawyer provided additional information to Joshua on March 4, 2003 and Dr. Lesley provided additional information to Joshua on March 6, 2003 . On April 8, 2003 Joshua sent a letter to Clay Fendley requesting additional information. Joshua concluded the letter with the following sentence: As we are in need of deciding whether to raise any of these matters before the court, we would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. LRSD provided no response to this letter. The facilitation process had failed. Page 6 of 10 18. Joshua did nothing further to pursue the Compliance Plan issues in accordance with -  8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan until March 10, 2004. On that date, counsel for Joshua wrote to ODM in an attempt to revive the issues Joshua had previously raised concerning LRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua did not present any of its Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner as required by paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 19. LRSD's decision to continue to implement its Compliance Plan notwithstanding Joshua's objections is in accordance with the terms of the Revised Plan: Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the District Court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party [Joshua] alleges failed to comply with this Revised Plan. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan  8.2.6. 21 . The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the LRSD's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, which were combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the LRSD Board in November of 2003 . The cost of the evaluation was approximately $100,000.00. 22. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant, along with Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and Vanessa Cleaver, LRSD's Director of the National Science Foundation Grant, authored the Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation. The Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. The Literacy and Math/Science evaluations were provided to the Joshua Intervenors and to ODM on January 12, 2004. The cost of this evaluation was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant. Page7of 10 23 . The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan - and the Court's compliance remedy by implementation of its Compliance Plan. Proposed Conclusions of Law 1. LRSD properly incorporated the requirements of the Compliance Remedy in its Compliance Plan. LRSD's substantial compliance with its Compliance Plan is tantamount to substantial compliance with the compliance remedy. 2. Joshua challenged LRSD's Compliance Plan pursuant to  8 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After it was apparent that the ODM facilitation process had failed, Joshua took no action to bring the Compliance Plan issues to the attention of the Court. Joshua failed to present to the Court in a timely manner the compliance issues it first pointed out to LRSD on November 1, 2002. Consequently, LRSD implemented its Compliance Plan for about 18 months without the Court being made aware that Joshua had any objection to it. Joshua has - therefore waived its argument that LRSD's Compliance Plan is insufficient to bring LRSD in line with the Court's compliance remedy. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1387 (8 th Cir. 1990) (\"Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action . . . . \") 3. Given the fact that Joshua abandoned its pursuit of a remedy under 8 of the Revised Plan, it was proper for LRSD to continue to implement its Compliance Plan according to 8.2.6 of the Revised Plan. 4. Even if Joshua had presented the Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner, I find that the LRSD Compliance Plan appropriately incorporates the requirements of the compliance remedy. I further find that LRSD has followed the requirements of its Compliance Plan and consequently, has met the requirements of the compliance remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d Page 8 of 10 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, e influence, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.\") 5. LRSD is declared to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with the Court's compliance remedy with respect to  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. All federal supervision and monitoring of LRSD is terminated forthwith. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller ( #81 08 3) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Littl72~201-3e493 :o~ (501~2~ BY:-=-==-c--'-''---~~-\"\"'---\"c....MC'----\"= Christopher Heller Page9of 10 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 71h day of June, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 021 73 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 Page 10 of I 0 ' \" .. RECEIVED JUN - 8 200't FILED c.u,..-U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~, ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN O 7 2004 A DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~MES W M W WESTERN DIVISION By  cCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8 66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. 'LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact \"and - Conclusions of Law Concerning the LRSD's Implementation of . the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy - On September 13, 2002, this court held that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon desegregation and education plan. [Mem. Opin. at 150-60] Accordingly, the court set forth a \"Compliance Remedy.\" [Id. at 170-72] This court's September 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2. 7. 1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's supervision. This court wrote: .... I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under Sec. 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-american . students. I further find that LRSD' s substanti al compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic 1 achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, replaced with new programs [at 150; emphasis in original] I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD' s compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African American students. [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenor's opposition to the LRSD effort to be released from court supervision, heard by the court on June 14-15, 2004. Based upon the record, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 I. Findings of Fact A. The Lack of Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) Based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 through 26, the court finds that the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sestion 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; ... \" [\"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin. at 170; see also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at --and JX at---, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last names. 2 The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this court cited the recognition of the school board and upper ec;::helon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations.\" [Mem. Opin. at 156; see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley); at 156-57 (school board); at 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]; at 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. [LRX 3 (\"Action Plan Timeline\" at 15-16)] Doctor Lesley left the district for employment out-of-state on March 14, 2003. [JX 11 at 5] The slow . pace of filling her position played a substantial part in continuing the lack of adequate staffing for the assessment \\ evaluation task. [Id. (ODM notes filling of position on an interim basis on June 26, 2003)] [Jones and Marshall testimony] (4.) Overall, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation \\assessment capacity. [ JX 11 at 2 (third paragraph), 5, 6, 16 (second paragraph) 2 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones and Marshall testimony] 2 The ODM report states in part: \"In the summer of 2001, the associate superintendent who led PRE had resigned and that position had remained empty. As a result, the top positions in both PRE and the instructional division were vacant at the critical time for preparing program evaluations. [footnote omitted]\" [JX 11 at 16] \"PRE\" refers to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 3 The Failure to Identify the Programs Subject to the Compliance Remedy (5.) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court found that the LRSD had identified \"many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2.7 [of the agreed upon Plan] \" [Mero. Opin. at 150] The court's Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. . [Mero. Opin. at 170; emphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRS D never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mero. Opin. at 151- 52;  153; 156-58], the LRSD properly concluded [LRX 3 at 7 (LRSD Compliance Plan)] that it must each year complete some comprehensive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students \" [Plan Section 2.7] (7.) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the  discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows: .... [Dr. Ross] also described the program evaluation process, which included a classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district 4 . . ... [JX 11 at 3; Jones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December 3, 2002, regarding the completion of 8 of the 14 \"page. 148 evaluations\" (that is evaluations listed on page 148 of the March 2002 interim compliance report) . It is titled \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School Disti:ict.\" [JX 6] 3 The document articulates, among others, the following premise [JX 6 at l]: Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment . . ' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. (9.) On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda.\" The Regulation sets forth standards and procedures for the content of program evaluations in the LRSD. [JX 2] (a) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2 at 3] identifies the need for the evaluation process to satisfy \"accuracy standards,\" including one concerning \"program documentation.\" Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly .. (b) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl also contains the following 3 The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 \"page 148 evaluations\" could be approved by the school board \"without additional work .... \" [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 \"page 148 evaluations.\" [JX 6 at 1-2] 5 provision: \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\\ instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. (c) Regulation IL-Rl provides in part (JX 2 at 5) that \"the first meetings [of the evaluation team] will be devoted to the following tasks _D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question,  Has this curriculum\\instruction program been ineffective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afri can-American  students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (\". . . thi_s . . . program . \"). (10.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") [JX 1) provides that \"all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Cammi ttee on Standards for Education Evaluation.\" Policy IL-Rl further identifies these standards as The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, _CA,; Sage Publications) . [JX 2 at 1] These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards\" [at 125, 127-28]: STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It is necessary for the evaluator to gain a sol~d understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was 6 / implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable .use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons 0 the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to descr.ibe _orally, and, if possible, in writing -- the interided and the actual program with reference to such. characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures, location, facilities, setting, activit~es, objectives, nature of participation, and potential side effects .... C. Engage independent observers to . describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved. The Literacy Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) ( 11.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the ttLittle Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.tt The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not including the question quoted in para. 9(c), identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 4 Where the focus was to be the impact of individual programs on African American achievement and the possible need for program changes, this omission led to an evaluation with an insufficient focus on 4 See Literacy Evaluation at 1; at 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7 particular programs and their impact on the intervenor class. (12.) The Literacy Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Literacy Evaluation at 10-11; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony. This is particularly the case at the middle school and high school levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 11] Interviews of middle and high school teach~rs revealed a lack of knowledge of any literacy plan at those levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 7, 13, 43] (13.) The Literacy Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board in.formation on particular programs adequate to determine whether any particular program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and - Jones testimony] There are evaluation models allowing a focus on individual programs. [Haney and Hunter testimony; LRX 16 at 6] (14.) The Literacy Evaluation provides scant information on the extent of implementation of any particular program. As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] ' (15.) The Literacy Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-47; Haney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires; lack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups; inadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8 from analyses). [Hunter testimony] (16.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-45] There is no discussion of \"equating\" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are of comparable rigor). There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately, of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (17.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations, a report that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data (that is, whether students are being promoted or retained) and drop out data. [Haney and Marshall testimony] ( 18.) The Literacy Evaluation is deficient when measured against the standards earlier articulated by Dr. Ross. See paragraphs 7-8. The text of the Literacy Evaluation shows that it \"focus [es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . \" The description of programs is .exceedingly terse and, at grade l1=vels 10-12, almost non-existent . [Literacy Evaluation at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess actual program implementation. The latter problem is a consequence of the schedule for the evaluation adopted by the LRSD, as well as the 9 inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation) . This study can not help to answer the question \"whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners.\" LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for i denti fying evaluation topics the following question [at 4]: \"Can the .results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program?\" See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Ev aluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (19 .. ) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. The Math-Science Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program ( s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Math-Science Evaluation at 5-10; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony] (20.) The Math-Science Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any indi victual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21.) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determi ning the extent of implementation of educational programs, but does not provide results for the math-science program. [MathScience- Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how 10 the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Math-Science Evaluation at 25-103; Han~y and Hunter testimony] (23.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [~, Math-Science Evaluation at 30- 34] There is no discussion of \"equating\" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are .of comparable rigor) . There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately,. of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (24.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations; a report like the Math-Science Evaluation that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data and drop out data. [Haney testimony; Marshall testimony] Other Factors (25.) The overall weakness of the Page 148 evaluations also evidences the lack of capacity of the LRSD to fulfill paragraphs (a) and (A) of the Compliance Remedy. See infra, paras. 27-28 and Mem. Opin. at 170-71. 11 (26.) The ODM report of March 30, 2004, states: \"Contrary to the spirit of the regulation for program evaluation, the [LRSDJ literacy evaluation team's involvement was limited to tacit approval of the evaluation plan and assisting with data collection.\" [JX 11 at 16] In a memorandum written in April 2004, Dr. Ross wrote: \"I was never contacted during the entire study period by any literacy evaluation team member.\" [LRX 16 at 4] The lack_of involvement of LRSD personnel is a negative factor in terms of the system's internal capacity for conducting evaluations and assessments -- a criterion for assessing compliance with the courtordered remedy. B. The Preparation of the Page 148 Evaluations (27.) The LRSD did not comply in substance with .the requirement of the court-ordered remedy that it [prepare] the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report . [Compliance Remedy, Mero. Opin. at 170] (28.) The evaluations filed by the LRSD on March 14, 2003 do not satisfy the standards for evaluations adopted by the LRSD on October 10, 2002 [JX 2], or the professional standards on which they are based. See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 148 ' Evaluation,'\" filed April 14, 2003; JX 11 at 21 (ODM R~port, March 30, 2004) (citing views of Dr. Ross about 8 of the 14 evaluations \"that, for the most part, the evaluations of the subject programs 'were worthless'\" and \"that the evaluations we:re of little or no use to the district\"); LRX 16 (memorandum written by Dr. Ross in April 2004) (\"all [eight] were woefully 12 ! I I inadequate and seemingly 'worthless' for informing policy or - practice\"). See JX 5(a)-(c) (memoranda by Dr. Lesley for the school board identifying deficiencies in 3 of the remaining 6 evaluations) . C. The Use of Evaluation and Assessment Results (29.) The LRSD provided no discussion of any use made of the results of evaluation\\assessment in the science area until furnishing an exhibit for these hearings. [JX 11 at 15 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); LRSD Exhibit List, April 21, 2004, LRX 17] (30.) The LRSD did not use the \"page 148 [evaluations]\" \"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, and changes- or modifications should be made in those programs.\" [Compliance Remedy, Mem. Opin. at 171-72] There is no suggestion of such use iri either the March 2003 or the March 12, 2004 submissions of the LRSD; see also JX 11 at 22 (ODM report, March 30, 2004). D. The Failure of the LRSD to Provide Information (31.) Subsequent to the court's  entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has acted in a manner limiting the availability of information about its compliance activities. (a) LRSD Policy IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda\") adopted by the LRSD in October, 2002, provides in part [JX 2 at 5, emphasis added] that the \"team leader\" for each evaluation shall G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabine~ and\\or Compliance 13 I I !I I I team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is received), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). Thereafter, the LRSD did not implement this provision. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; Jones and Marshall testimony] (b) On April 8, 2003, as part of the Section 8 process, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors directed a letter to the LRSD concerning the plan for carrying out evaluations and the provision to Joshua of information on observation of the educational program within several schools. [LRX 15] The LRSD ignored this letter. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; testimo~y to be adduced] (c) On October 27, 2003, the LRSD provided a terse, nonsubstantive status report to ODM and counsel for Joshua Intervenors (John W. Walker). [JX 7; Marshall testimony] (d) The LRSD school board approved the Literacy Evaluation in November, 2003. The school board approved the Math-Science Evaluation in December, 2003. [LRSD Compliance Report, March 12, 2004, at 3-4] The LRSD did not provide these evaluations to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until January 12, 2004 (and then provided them only to John W. Walker). [LRX 8] E. Other Factors (32.) The data in the Literacy and Math-Science evaluations shows the extent to whi ch African American achievement lags behind white student achievement. This data demonstrates the importance of the LRSD's having the capacity to assess and evaluate individual education programs in terms of effectiveness for blac~ students and the need to better implement, modify, or replace programs. 14 l l (33.) The Joshua Intervenors set forth concerns regarding the LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy in a letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM, on March 10, 2004 (with a copy to counsel for the LRSD) . [ See The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition, April 15, 2004, Attach. BJ (34.) LRSD submissions subsequent to the court's entry of the compliance Remedy do not show that in that period the LRSD worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to remediate the racial academic achievement disparities which continue to exist in the system. See for example the achievement data in the Math-Science evaluation. The LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Pulaski County School District Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989), Section I.II- (a, c), III-G. II. Conclusions of Law ( 1.) This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon remedial plan. [Mem. Opin., 9-13-02, at 150-160] As a consequence of this noncompliance, the court's compliance remedy placed the burden of demonstrating compliance with the remedy on the LRSD. [Id. at 170, preface] (2.) In order to decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy, the court must determine whether the deficiencies alleged by the Joshua Intervenors \"were serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantial noncompliance'; and ( 2) ' to cast doubt' on LRSD' s ' future compliance with the 15 I i i j \\I :I ,I 1 constitution.'\" [Id. at 77] Once again, the LRSD has the burden of proof with regard to substantial compliance. (3.) The record establishes: (a) On the whole, t~e \"page 148 evaluations\" do not support a determination that the LRSD substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. (b) Because the Literacy and the Math-Science evaluations have a li~ited or non-existent focus on individual programs, they do not permit a determination of whether any particular program should be modified, or replaced. (c) Due to the gathering and presentation of inadequate information on program implementation, the Literature and MathScience evaluations do nor permit a determination of whether individual programs should be implemented in a different manner. (d) Multiple elements of the record establish that the LRSD . has not \"demonstrate[d] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; . II (4.) The LRSD has failed to establish substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy by a preponderance of the evidence. ( 5.) Th_e \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied  with [Plan] Section 2. 7 .1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy\" [Mem. Opin., Sept. 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates 16 j I l  substantial compliance with that remedy for a period of two additional school years, at minimum (the period of additional jurisdiction must be sufficient to allow ac:Iequate evaluations) . Additional court supervision of this duration will afford the LRSD the time needed to achieve compliance with the remedy; and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors, ODM, and the court the time to insure that compliance t merely transitory. --ll-~.....,,_,,...c:;:...-=..:..._.,__-=!)7.---'-1~9\" n 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 17 t,/ John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker , P . A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 I I I ,I :1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served, via U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals:  Hon. Judge J. Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heller United States Magistrate Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 600 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Regions Center I Little.Rock, AR 72201 Littie Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Scott Smith, General Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall I Arkansas Department of Education ODM I #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 404A 124 W~st Capitol, Suite 1895 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock; AR 72201 I Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Mark Hagemeier I I John C. Fendley, P.A. Mr. Timothy Gauger 51 Wingate Drive 323 Center Street I - Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Mr. M. Samuel Jones Mr. Stephen W. Jones Wright Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell \u0026amp; Blackstock 1010 West 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 !dalt!\u0026amp; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGijT, ET AL. COMBINED PCSSD MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCS SD for its combined motion and memorandum, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIVEJ JUN - 8 20011 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION fiiO:: .. : ::,J 1. To promote brevity, the PCSSD is combining its motion and memorandum into one document. 2. This dispute centers around different interpretations of the M-to-M stipulation by the PCS SD and the LRSD. The PCS SD is concerned that these disagreements will not be resolved in time to permit all current M-to-M students and applicants to actually transfer for the impending year and be guaranteed transportation. Hence this motion. 3. Counsel is informed that the LRSD is requiring existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm school choices and M-to-M status as these students matriculate from one organizational level to the next. 504196-v1 4. Rather than requiring reapplication, the PCSSD has developed a \"tracking form\", attached as Exhibit A, which should suffice for LRSD's needs but not require a reapplication. 5. While the tracking form is very similar to the M-to-M application, it avoids the disruption and concern expressed by students and parents that a reapplication jeopardizes their , M-to-M status by promoting unnecessary delay and prncedures. The PCSSD believes that the current LRSD process and procedures are inconsistent with Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which states: The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 5. The PCSSD has proposed a solution to these issues but as indicated by its memorandum dated May 25, 2004, attached as Exhibit C, the LRSD has not agreed. 6. PCSSD interprets Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation to mean that once an LRSD student acquires M-to-M status in the PCSSD, then that student becomes, for all purposes, a PCS SD student unless or until the student affirmatively seeks to withdraw. In that sense, the PCSSD believes that these former LRSD students acquire the same rights as to future school assignments as are enjoyed by indigenous PCSSD students. This includes not only mandatory assignment patterns but the availability of assignment via the PCSSD's intra- 504196-v1 2 district voluntary transfer programs as well as the privilege to apply for PCSSD specialty schools pursuant to the rules which apply to all PCSSD students. 7. Upon information and belief, LRSD's contract with Laidlaw requires that all M-to- M students be identified and \"processed\" sometime this summer. Obviously, if the process is not finalized by then, these students may be denied transportation and hence will not transfer. 8. Upon information and belief, the LRSD is \"holding\" tracking forms until this dispute is resolved. (Please seen Exhibit C). WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the parties to comply with the language of Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation and to conform their I current policies and procedures to the M-to-M stipulation so that the M-to-M process may - proceed smoothly and without creating unnecessary concern on the part of M-to-M students and their parents and for all proper relief. 504196-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 7, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 504196-v1 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 PAGE 06/06 05/04/2004 ,15: 24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE -..., ,' .: ... '\" PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM ',, lbis form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If . the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other ~ctors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME: ____________ StudentID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ______________ _ City: _____________ State: _____ _,Zip Code:, ____ _ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: DATE OF BIRTH: __ SEX: __ RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.lNG THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: --------- PARENT OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ PARENTS'S MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ _ City:. __ --:'.\"::\"'.\"\"-:------------State: ______ .Zip Code: ____ _ PARENT'S IIOMEPHONE NUMBER __________ _ PAREN'I''S WORK PHONE NUMBER OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT C_AN_B_E_RE_A_C_HED ____ SCHOOL REQUESTED ___________________ _ DOES nns STUDENT REQUlRE TRANSPORTATION ___ YES -----'NO DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQlT.IRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ------'NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALrn: PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION ---SE_C_11-:::0N 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requeste~_transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: ______________ DATE: ___ _ Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED:______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ EXHIBIT A ,,,, ------- - --------- \\ , ... ..  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), . North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation 0 majority-to-minority transfer provisions i s contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2 . Eligibility: EXHIBIT 6 ------- ------------------    a . Black students who are members of the raci~l m~jority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 peicent or more bl~ck in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority.  .. , b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a particip~ting district which c. district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the raci,al minority . Prior to the transfer of ' any stud.ent, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good st~nding, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host' districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application . 2   4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av a1abi li ty of space in schoo-ls and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state startdards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the ho\"me district, which shall be communicated to the parent or' guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultati6n indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside . 3 8. Host districts shall not have the authority t6 ' remand tr tsfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, -suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. On~e admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same_ general standards, a':cademic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request ; This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention; I . counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspensian and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student . Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to part{cipate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffe r any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be fac i litated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be. borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ' 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of t1tisporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option .of (1) paying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including -all add-ons for special education, TAG,  vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food serv i ce, and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro~rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the , costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5  previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall estimate the full-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to c. the State in September \u0026amp;f each year when payment begins. A correction wili be made in January of each year. Payments shall be ~ade by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected. The students transferred to the host district shall not be counted , I in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the district. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State a{d (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6   state aid for the home district. All transfers' of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate programs and resources, as identified in the IEP, at the host school. d. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and ' programs. 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Lit t le Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of n~t upsetting that balance through the operat i on of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted I student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of th~ Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 '  violations of any law or regulation and, specif i cally, shall ne be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose ,the stdent body of any affected school~ ,, Agreed this 26~h day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR DIS 2258L 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ~~ 06/04/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/06 NAY 2 6 20015 LITTLE ROC:K SCHOOL DISTRJCT 501 SHERMAN STREET Lrrn..E ROCK, AR. 72202 STIJDENT REGIS TR.A TION OFF'Ic;E Phouc (501) 447.2950 Fax: (501) 447-2951 May 25, 2004 TO: FROM: THROUGH: Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Eq'!-ljty and Pupil Services Julie Wiedower, D~tor of Student Registratio~  ~  Junious Babas;,,Associate Superintendent for .Administrative Se~ces  RE: PCSSD Tracking Forms Last week we received copies ofa l'CSSD Tracking Form for current M to M students who will be changing organizational levels for the 2004-05 scho0l year. In looking over these forms we identified a variety of concerns and questions regarding specific students. Other questions arose regarding the status of the assignments - some fonns are signed, some are not- and a number offonns list a LRSD school yet the parents have not completed a M to M Withdrawal form. In fact, some of the tracking forms are on students who are not even on our database as M to M transfer students! Clearly, we need to sit down aod go over the form so we can understand how your district intends to utilize it and how we can address some of these issues. However, at this point such a meeting would be premature. Our district has received a draft \"Memorandum of Understanding Between the LR.SD and the PCSSD Regarding Majority to Minority Tra.,sfers\" but we have not agreed to this Memorandum. Since the PCSSD Tracking Fonn is a part of this yet-unsigned document, I have asked Becky Rather to \"hold\" the forms until agreement is reached. Once that occurs we look forward to a meeting to iron out the aforementioned difficulties with the forms. Hopefully tb.e Memorandum will be addressed before the middle of June so accurate data will be available as our transportation routes are created. Cc: /or. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Pupil Services Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Chris Heller Becky Rather EXHIBIT ---- --------- - ------------ 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. RECEIVED JUN If ;:004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT Comes now, Little Rock School District (hereinafter, \"LRSD\") by and through their undersigned attorneys, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, for Response to Pulaski County Special School District's (\"PCSSD\") Combined Motion and Memorandum Regarding M-to-M Disagreement states: 1. LRSD does not require existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm M-to-M status at the conclusion of one organizational level to the next. According to the Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority Transfers (\"Stipulation\"), attached as Exhibit B to PCSSD's motion, students who elect to transfer via the M-to-M program remain students of the host district until such time as they choose to return to the district where they reside. 2. Rather, LRSD asks students who participate in the M-to-M program progressing from one organizational level to the next (i .e., from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school) to submit a form affirming the school choice site. LRSD implemented this process for two reasons: (1) to ascertain the space available in each of its schools to accommodate the LRSD attendance zone population each year, and (2) to ascertain the M-to-M students attending schools at the next organizational level outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. This process does not violate the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. 3. The \"tracking form\" the PCS SD speaks of in its Motion and Memorandum is strikingly similar to the M-to-M application, as PCS SD concedes. Because of the similarity between the two documents, several parents wishing to withdraw their students from the M-to-M program are misguided regarding their student 's school assignment. 4. As an example, in the tracking forms attached hereto as Exhibit A, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent's approval stamp has given many parents the impression that their student has been assigned to the school requested upon completion of the tracking form . This, - notwithstanding the fact that (1) the students have not submitted M-to-M withdrawal forms; (2) the students do not reside in the requested school's attendance zone; (3) the school requested is a LRSD specialty magnet school and the student has not applied for admission to the specialty magnet, thinking that the PCSSD tracking form is the application; or (4) the requested school is not a school in the LRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. Moreover, LRSD believes PCSSD's interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the M-to M stipulation to be clearly violative of the plain language of Paragraph 2 of the same stipulation which, in pertinerit part, states: a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its emollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its 6. enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Among the specialty schools the PCSSD speaks ofin Paragraph 6 of its Motion and Memorandum are College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle School and Mills High School. 7. During the 2003-2004 school year, each of the aforementioned school sites was more than 50 percent black. LRSD, therefore, believes that to assign an indigenous LRSD student to a PCS SD school that is more than 50 percent black via an M-to-M transfer contravenes the plain language in Paragraph 2 of the M-to-M stipulation and the goals of the M-to-M program as a whole. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays for an order directing the parties to comply with Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation and for all other proper relief Respectfully submitted, Christopher J. Heller Khayyam M. Eddings FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 FBAX: (501) ~7 -214~~- y: ~---- Khayyam dings (020 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, 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, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank 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 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, 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, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank 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 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 PCSS (M tt M) ~TU:ENT TRACKING FIHlM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME STUDENTS RESIDE City: L, ..\\-\\  State:  Alf) Zip Code: -Z. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: -3L_DATE OF BIRTH:oi /z.~EX:_r_RACE: / SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.t\"'NG T'\".dE 2003-04 SCHOOL '{EAR:~ ,\\ 1 \\00 'o\"1'{\\5:)V\"\\ }v~ \\ cld .Q PARENT OR GU G CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ . ss: l3r\u0026gt;to LA h lsc::i n (6 cL - City. L1 +I\\ R riucK State: \u0026amp;\\'2. ( Zip Code: :2 L-Z.05 s~ PARENT'S HOivlE PHONE NUMBER fu, J seo s- :sc:\u0026gt;\"3.~ rv\" ~ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 5 \\RCf -35 I~- -~~r OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED ~~ ~ , ~ SCHOOL REQUESTED Cenrz1J ~\\ ~V ) Q/.Y ~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION v / YES ____ 0 DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVTCES ___ YES V: NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to co plete the requeste tr sfer.  Form completed by: ----~R., l-rf-l5- -----Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE .OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES j/ ~l\\ D--LR B ~_; APPROVAL DATE 5, 3/vf DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ .. j EXHIBIT !g A ~ --..-- :c ., PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This fonn is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SN p S'S MAILING ADDRE 'i' J  City: L:+-H::e. 12 oJc. Zip Code:7 J-..iu-y P ARENT' S HOME PHONE NUMBER _i:,;........,.,L;z'-'\"9._-...1...fJ .,\u0026lt;/-~ --L-1_,_7 _____ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 7 S 3 , 5' SE; g OTBER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED ~  r{\\C i'l e. ~ -'---\"'--='-----=--=---------+-,--tt--- DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION V .,. YES---~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ___ _ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the reques,ryd transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: th(L,'\\),\\_ r::_,c_,Ju;:!J DATE: 4  .::23. O'j  Fann completed by: --------------Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPJL SER VICES : I . - \u0026lt; o/\\---R B ~ APPROVAL TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (Mto M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SNAME~StudentID # .So 14 g STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:~ /_J J/r '-II\u0026lt;~ City: u+H \u0026lt; ~:\u0026lt; /k State: (}d-,_ _ Zip Code:  ';7 .zc// ,. GRADE LEVEL AS o'F SEPT. 2004: __yz_DATE OF BIRTH: 7/i4/9,3~EX:_..J::_RACE: i-if:1fthi1 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: Lt\u0026gt; , {_, , n-itY\\ fl lw;,{'J ~,-t.-- p AREN GE OF THE STUDENT ,J City: L-- ,(, u:..., -  ~~ate: _13(2_,,_-~------=----Zip Code:/ )--,.?-{,Cf PARENT{S~bME PHONE NUMBER ']-/ )- :7(C:; --'-,--~~--\"'---'~----,---- PARENT'S WORK PHO NE Nillv IB ER iu J .)-V)-'t X~- 1,,;_, .1g.~,=;-if{. :-' J ; OTHER NUMBER WHERE/~ARENT ~~ BE RpACHED :'fi r t ' 1\u0026lt;/ 7(-.,S - I:: J / :, - B\"t! // 17 d l \u0026gt;I .) SCHOOL REQUESTED .f-1''!\u0026amp;:..r .::\u0026gt; f-n-:,e c - ./ --- , ,, u 1\\ t L V DOES THIS STUDENT REQfuRE TRANSPORTATION ; /- YES ___ T\" ~_-\\-flo L- I-.___, DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES __ YES L --- NO~~ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ~ r-1-.t, ____ HEALTHPLAN ____ IEP/SPECIALEDUCATION c:::?\"1311L-1.I __ SECTION 504 ACCO:MMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in ~J:li'?h my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to ~/9~plet~_ th~/eqtie~;ied l ,axsfer., , / /' _I  -, , - ; I /fl . I~ PARENT'S SIGNATURE:  // ik.~i-_(:: _/L,, (j l -f::.[-[ 1,.._'-I,(._ i, ,,, ..-! / / I                              ~/ ,,                                                 .... ~ Form completed by: ______________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES }.'  ;( w.X )3 ~A__) APPROVAL DATE 7 TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT' S N 1.-f\"r----.,-Student ID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ur:::due C.1 cc \\-e..., City: CY:) State: Al?) Zip Code: r) ?..,,'2.DLj GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: C/+i=DATE OF BIB.TH: ~-15 -9 /SEX:../'.D_ RACE:_6 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURIN\"G THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: G:\\d:c:: \\ th 11 b ke:i;::11{;, _( P OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF 1HE STUDENT ___ d City: _ __,__..___ _________ State: -'---=-----Zip Code: --1'----'-\"'==--+---1-1- p ARENT' S HO:rvJE PHONE NUMBER ~ ~~LP~'S-- ':/~?(_Jq _____ PARENT' S WORK PHONE NUMBER ~::\u0026gt;...,__'1-'-4.-- '---=2..=t\u0026gt;::...5.:-,::_4...,__ ____ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED (-t -+-'-'---- --r..-tir--M-~---r.::#:.:t-l SCHOOL REQUESTED ' I H-C DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORT A ION-~_ YES _ __ _ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES ___ YES -~-- IF YES, PLEASE INDICATEEo,v SERVICES APE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: C1 _r~ 0 ~ _C'\\ y - Form completed by: -------------Counselor' s office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES j/ J\\ 0vJ:. J3 ,I....Q,,u,)::::r\\. ) APPROVAL DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER .APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM MAY D 7 2004 This form is to track (M to :M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STIJDENT'S NAME Student ID # 5 {)dl /.p STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:  0 K It=. - k IV City: N LR.  State: . Zip Code:::,....C.C\u0026gt;\u0026lt;l...-:1........,__,.,.. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: },Q__ DATE OF BIRTH/1 /'7 i\".13SEX: - RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YE : C Lf t-ITOITELFMENtAR_ V PARENT OR G GCUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT --- { rvE I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to mplete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: -+l--\u0026lt;--\"'--rra__'---r_'i._f\\ ._ _;_f;n--.d'----=~-1--=--lc._R__! __D ATE #+ ..........................    II    ~  Fonn completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICEpF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES !J wJ! j3 . 7\\ ~ ~ APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- 04/15/2004 08:15 5013709755 QUALITYSECURITY PAGE 02 PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. lf the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial mposition of the r uested school. STUDENT' S N STIIDENTS RESIDENCE ADORES . City: L,''1/-{ ICCJeJ\u0026lt;.. --\"C:~...._--\"\"\"-'~~--=-'--\"------::------ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING -04 SCHOOL P ODY OR CHARGE PARE t , City: /.-_,.fife KJe ,t State: _.,__._.__._ _ Zip Code: 7 ,Po2c:J .;2..,. PARENT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER 5 c, / - ,Z!lr./ - ~ I 5 8' PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER .So I~ 3 :2\u0026lt;2  'l 15 1/ OTHER NUMBER WHE13Ji_P ARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED  J )u.nba..r /YJ .  Sc.)----- --1-.,.....;t-t-\"\"-\"\"--......,..,,.. DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION __ YES v DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES v-7 IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: NO NO _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPOR TATTON I give permission to the school in which my child is cun-ently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. -- - Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE QF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES i) B . ,,,... fi I  i\\ 00_.!( ..A--Q..,v\\..,\"'1-y\u0026lt;.__) APPROVAL DATE ' TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE ____ _ SCHOOOL TO WIITCH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU. . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (SOI) 682-4475  hllp:/ / arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director June 30, 2004 Mr. M. San1uelJones,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 Vf. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION r110NITORlNG RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I an1 filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, IA  Wa,i ~ Tripp Walter Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education TW:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer ..' . ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECENEO JUL l - 1uu~ off\\Ct Or R\\RG tltStGPitG~i\\Oti i,10ti\\i0 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 June 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ,, 6# ,, '1./~711 Alexis Tripp Walter, Bar # 2003183 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501 -682-422 7 .. ' . .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tripp Walter, certify that on June 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, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ a, \"~/'M/~JZf Alexis Tripp Walter    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_1782","title":"Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the 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":["2004-05"],"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","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the 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/1782"],"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":["70 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing documents in response to the Court order filed May 12, 2004; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing glossary of acronyms and educational terms in response to the Court's order filed May 12, 2004; 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.    A072A (Rev.8182) ECEIVED MAY 1 -\" 2004 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAY 1 2 - LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --=-=-=-=::-:-:::-:= DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAY 1 '. 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSD 's Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) The LRSD Board, in approving the October 10, 2002 \"Compliance Plan,\" also adopted \"IL-Rl ,\" which sets forth ''the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs.\" While the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan is attached as Exhibit A to LRSD's March 14, 2003 ''Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Court's Compliance Remedy'' (docket entry #3745), \"IL-R 1\" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of \"IL-RI.\" (2) Exhibit A to LRSD's \"Compliance Report\" is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSD's attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written \"concerns\" raised by Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding 864 A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's proposed \"Compliance Plan.\" In oroer for the Court to place Mr. Fendley's October 25, 2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walker's October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his \"concerns\" about the \"Compliance Plan\"; and (b) a copy of the document that Mr. Fendley repeatedly quotes Mr. Walker referring to in his October 10 and October 24, 2002 letters as ''your document.\"1 Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with copies of the foregoing documents. (3) In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I thought I made it clear that I am a big fan of plain English and have no desire to learn the acronym-filled lexicon of the professional educator. Therefore, I am now directing counsel to comply with the following rules in all oral and written communications with the Court in this case: (a) Do not use any educational acronyms unless they are first defined. The pleadings that I have reviewed to date in preparing for the June 14 and 15 hearing are littered with references to \"SAIPs,\" \"DRAs,\" \"DIBELs,\" \"ELLA,\" \"CRT,\" \"SMART,\" \"THRIVE,\" \"ACTAAP,\" \"SREB,\" \"CREP,\" and \"SFA.\" Counsel for LRSD must immediately prepare a glossary which defines all acronyms used in all exhibits attached to LRSD's Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 11 speculate that \"your document\" is probably LRSD's \"Compliance Plan,\" which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSD's counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) (b) During the hearing on June 14 and I 5, please instruct your witnesses to testify usingplain English- not professional educatorese. Based upon the parties' previous written submissions and testimony taken in earlier hearings, I fear this may pose a significant challenge for some of the witnesses (and me). If so, I encourage these witnesses to begin now to practice speaking in plain English, so that they will be ready to testify by the June 14 and 15 hearing. ( 4) On or before June 7, 2004, counsel for Joshua and LRSD must submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under Section VII of the Court's September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. (5) On April 22, 2004, we had a telephone conference during which LRSD's Compliance Hearing was rescheduled from April 26 and 27, 2004, to June 14 and 15, 2004. During that telephone conference, I stated that I would make every effort to render my decision on LRSD's Compliance Report by June 30, 2004. Based upon my current work load, I now believe the earliest I will be able to enter my decision is thirty to sixty days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this / ~ay of May, 2004. -3- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley \u0026gt; .-'/Z-v'( Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 - TI1ere are j_ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being s~nt by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2004 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12, 2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 (Appendix 1 of which is \"IL-RI\"); B. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002; and, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walker's references to \"your document,\" the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 3 3. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. 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: { P,,, ~ \\-..U ._ Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3 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 May 13, 2004: 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 ~\\UP-..~ Christopher Heller Page 3 of 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2.7.1 ...  EXHIBIT I ft The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Section 2. 7 .1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 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. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of 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. 1Revised Plan  2. 7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 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. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance  Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent t!1ey may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. *** F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Court's Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Court's Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Court's Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan; numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Court's use of the term \"assessment\" in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesley's testimony on the difference between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation,\" see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3 It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between \"testing data,\" which . are derived from student assessments, and \"program evaluations,\" which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p. 152 (''LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the \"program evaluations\" to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 ... \" (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term \"assessment\" in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Court's intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Court's findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African-American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term \"assessment\" to refer to student assessments and the term \"evaluation\" to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph A's reference to ''testing data,\" it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation; (2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous spring' s results; and (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26, 2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the AL Ts. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the AL Ts for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks; (2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4 - testing and test administration; (3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSD's administration of the ALTs redundant; and (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade2 Grade4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5 Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, ~ Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix 3. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for review and comment before being :finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Court's concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 (\"I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters' worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD's African-American students were actually working.\"). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\". See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 6 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: ( a) Primary Reading/Language Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15, 2004. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph A's description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD \"must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 . . . \" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of \"some of the key programs,\" as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (\"In addition to the \"Assessment Plan,\"  2. 7 .1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing \"evaluations\" of some of the key programs designed to improve African-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs.\" (emphasis in original)). In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations \"of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 (\"[A]s of March 15, 2001 , the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court: (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question; (2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board . .. . \" (emphasis in original)). The District Court's statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, \"All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003.\" However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 until March 15, 2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15, 2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of\"the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7.\" See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph A's requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve African-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph C's requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert \"to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report\" applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include \"[a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing .... \" Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the external consultant \"may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation.\" Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSD's practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows: 1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . He was asked to Fead a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (''NSF\") program officer who over-sees the LRSD's implementation of the grant-funded 8 3. 4. Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (\"CPMSA\"). NSF trained a team ofLRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate our :findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage ( computer programmer). Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (\"ESL\") program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson ( assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, technical and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending on the expertise that is required for a credible report. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed: 1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01 , and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (\"SEDL'') to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watson's principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 11. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT\"). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. 12. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, \"LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court ''will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications.\" It is unclear whether an \"expert from outside the LRSD\" must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, or whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with \"similar qualifications.\" The District Court's findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified ''that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations.\" Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be \"completed\" by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committee's proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving African-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to \"complete\" an evaluation. 11 Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CL Ts during 2000-01 . A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CL T training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12 - Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this Week of September 30, Clay Fendley proposed Compliance Plan 2002 Ken James to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, Week of October 7, 2002 Attorneys suggested revisions from Ken James ODM and Joshua. Compliance Team 3. Place Compliance Plan October 10, 2002 Ken James on the agenda for Board Attorneys review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 13 - 8. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 10. Form a screening team Late October 2002 Ken James to determine Compliance Team recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 11. Select and negotiate Mid-November 2002 Bonnie Lesley consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff Mid-November 2002 Ken James to each external expert to Bonnie Lesley provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to Mid-November Bonnie Lesley ensure timely completion. 2002-February 2003 14. As each J)aper is December 2002-February Bonnie Lesley completed and ready for 2003 circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 14 - 15. As each paper is December 2002-F ebruary Ken James completed, place on the 2003 Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim March 15, 2003 Attorneys Compliance Report relating Compliance Committee to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's - Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 15 - 21. Monitor the completion May-October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and - Joshua for information. 25. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. - 16 Appendix 1 Proposed IL-Rl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs 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 Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Boardapproved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994 ). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows:  Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed.  Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance.  Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of cljents and other specified stakeholders.  . Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear.  Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1  Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion.  Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.  Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained.  Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted.  Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.  Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants.  Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it.  Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated  with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed.  Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.  Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2   evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluator's allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated.           Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively.  Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3   Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 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 Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall 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. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent shall 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 Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for th~ production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team shall 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 shall be retained 4 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 shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including 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 Associate Superintendent for Instruction 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. D. 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? (See Policy IL, 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must 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 and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; 5 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 Approaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Harry 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:  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 being successful for the improvement of AfricanAmerican 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 Associate Superintendent for Instruction 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, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 6 11. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilson's \"Compliance Remedy\"): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. 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. (See Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) 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. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. 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 to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction 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.\" Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7 Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions \"Academic Program\" means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. \"Significantly modify\" means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program; (b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1 Appendix 3 Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002 78 .CHAMPION ,;Map .out evaluat:i:o.n  goals A master plan can guide yo_u down the rocky path of ~valuatio~  W . hen you launch a inajor professional dev~lop,nent evaluation, regardless of the . project's scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, . . . . with twists and unexpected turns. . .  Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a  master plan. While itTequires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avciid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are ~aunching a major, summative program evaluation. A \"summative\" evaluation is done at major junctures in a  program's life. cy~le and emphasizes . docu~ menting impact Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue,  alter, expan.d, downsize, or eliminate it A \"formative\" evaluation, on the other hand, means  monitoring and collecting.data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Fonnative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions;  Create a realistic tirneline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbell'Canyon, Mora, NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-.mail: Robbychampion@aol.com. provides .needed momentum for the work; . :  Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions . throughout the process;  Help recruit people to assist with the project ' on.the myriad evaluation.tasks;   Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whetper your evaluation must be   completed within a few months or will extend . for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE  PROCESS  L Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. . 2. Learn moreabout program evaluation together.  3: Write a clear description of each  program to be.evaluated: 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the ,evaluation. . .5. Plan how you will keep. everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically  . with program evaluati_on, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities might push the effort aside. . Provide steering committee members with the tools to ~ucceed. Mem~ers need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002. : .on:experis, but they do need informa- . . . on, support, and guidance to make infoirued decisions .. They need background material to learn about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on prof~ssional development, measurement, arid the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the \"New Teacher..Induction Program\" or  the \"Early Literacy Initiative\" since s6 many different initiatives are being under-  ta.ken simultaneously arciund the school or  district.  PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the  evaluation.'  2. Generate potential data sources/ . instruments to address the questions .. a  3. Using a matrix to provide a j. . Wrd's-eye .view, agree on the most important questions .and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to m~e the evaluation manageable.  5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense: quantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data. collection. .7. Detennine a realistic schedule for . collecting data. . . 8. Create a system for coJiecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase II are critical. They detennine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine  and what to ignore. When you finish with ~ the design phase, your program evaluation Will be shaped to .use a quantitative or a , qualitative model - or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make other - jor decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to  do ~ in-depth case study, whether to t a It j .n g m e :a s :u r e ON THE WEB. See. an example of a matnx.'to help guide evaluations at:  www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of student work instead of official do_cuments such as .student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to . judge adult learners' understanding of the training .content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or student feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate , evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering cornmittee may drift  into the realm of program planning as you  encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve prograrnJeaders in your discussions . Developing or gathering insn:uments and then collecting the data:are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect,  from whom to collect it. or where to find it, and the best time to collect it Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as student attendance, may be valuable if, for example, \"20% increase in student attendance at all grade levels\" is one of your program's indica-  tors of impact PHASE  Ill: PREPARE TO REPORT  1 .. Determine which audiences will want to .lrnow the results. 2. Consider several forums and  formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results usefuJ. to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about . the schedule for data collection, five- . JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council minute progress updates in faculty meet- . ings, bulleted statements on your.web site, a digital picture. album of the program's results in classrooms with . photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with exampl~s of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of . five pages or less to belp;readers get the essential information, PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for  the whole eve.luatiori .. 2. Create a realistic timeline. . 3. Assign work . . .4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomplish all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project. Enlist .stee~g committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented .critical friends to get' the work done.  One caution: .For formal or sumrnative evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the. program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to pe:rf orm critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality technical . expertise for the ritical technical  analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation. usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, policies, and. practices of your prof es-' . s1onal development programs - their goals, content, processes, and. contexts. In fact,revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major  changes are needed if. significant results are really expected from professional  development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. II 79 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark . 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LA w 1723 BROADWAY LI'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITI'LE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net - This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSD's proposed Compliance Plan. The court's remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before today's Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 . .. \", which are to be subjected to a \"comprehensive program evaluation . . . \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / \"scaffolding\" -- areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wtlson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the court's remedy. - 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluat~io111ns------.. \"\" EXHIBIT t5 i mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns, which Joshua ma'y ultimately have about the court's remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the court's views on an appropriate remedy. JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record ----------- - ------------ OCT.24.2002 9:06AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHNW. WA.LR:ER SID.WN CRILDS Mr. Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L!'M'LE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: N0 . 963 P.2 Oli'COUNBEL ROBERT McBENR.Y, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENXY 821D Hzm\u0026gt;ERSON ROAD Lmu Rocx, ARKANshS 72210 P'l!ONE: (5-01) 372-3425  PAX (501) 372-8428 :E;MAn.: mchemyd@awb\u0026lt;ill.net _ 1bis letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. l. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data In the past, LRSD bas used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the ''team\" process for preparin,g evaluations, again in the context of \"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LR.SD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the ~ntent of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory p~rf ormance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board oftbe evaluations which it .;., - . j EXHIBIT I C, 10/ 24 / 2002 THU 09: 03 [TX/ RX NO 8580 l ~ 002 -------- --- ------------- ,,. o. r,-,,T.. . 24. 2002 8: 07AM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.963 P.3  Page Two October 23, 2002 requires the staff to undertake should make clear th.at the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of A:fricnn American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/ 2002 THU 09 : 03 [TX/RX NO 8580] la)003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 n 2004 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. fu response to the Court's Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of - Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol g~ B~ Page 1 of 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 May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 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 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 2 of 2 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS - Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALT's in September 2002. ANCOV A (Analysis of Covariance) ANO VA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for correct answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) -Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses student's individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areas-reading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking. CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses children's knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team)-A process designed to increase stakeholders' involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a child's progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral r~ading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. - EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE - An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help 8th and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program ffiPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of curriculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement Test JR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science) - A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ- Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items correctly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank corresponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science education NSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence)-A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) -A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through 3rd Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACT AAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying - formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth. (Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, community members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8th and 9th grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address . pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score :- Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesn't mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvement TAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared. Arkansas RECEIVED J~l~ 1 - 2004 DEPARTMENT OF EDUC4ETE8fiuromNG 4 STATE CAPITOL MAil.  LfITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http:/ / arkedu.kl2.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director May 28, 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. 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 BNIHDllNDW NDllVB3HB3S30 :l033l:l:l0 +aoz - r nnr 03/\\l303H RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 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 --------------- STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Luke Gordy, Van Buren  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUH 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION faONITORING 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 May 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ,g1t ii.db Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 28, 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. 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION ;;i ONITORING 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 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, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Endin9 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_1770","title":"Court filings regarding motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order, Joshua intervenors' and LRSD's exhibit and witness list, 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":["2004-04"],"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","African Americans--Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","School integration","School improvement programs","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order, Joshua intervenors' and LRSD's exhibit and witness list, 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/1770"],"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":["18 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, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their opposition to the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order of April 19, 2004; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' exhibit list and witness list; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) witness list and exhibit list; 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.    . ., . C,\\ t,(A,~ - t: JWR... APR 15 200, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK WESTSRN DIVISION By~ 5Epc(]Al( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED . APR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Mon'i taring of Its Desegregation Efforts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2. 7 .1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy.\" [Mem. Opiri., September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied apd supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Int.ervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case, the accompanying memorandum, and evidence (including expert 1This two year period of time will afford the LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with tne remedy; and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1 I i I l . i I I i l i testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled - by the court. iRenvsr ~ ... Ro ert Pressman . 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY ,. 10013-28 97 212-965-2200 2 o Walker 'ckey Hicks ohn W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 15th day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3 (J ' tr ~ - FILED  ' c.ao-Jl;!_.,DISTRICT COURT ~ -. ..,..., s::rv11 DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 15 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By . DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUN~Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED APR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitorina of Its Deseareaation Effo~ts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2. 7. 1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy\" [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years. This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1 / ,.. supervision. This court wrote: I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs 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 [at 150; emphasis in original] . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in rernediating the academic achievement of African American students. [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 . through 14, the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . [ \"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin., at 170; see also id. at 168) (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to . prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations.\" [Mem. 2 / ,J' , 1'  ' Opin. at 156; see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley ) ; at 156-57 (school - board); at 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]; at 159 (Dr. Lesley)]. (3.) Subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation/assessment unit. [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 2, 16] (4.) In its opinion of September 13, 2002, the court found that the LRSD had identified \"many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2. 7 [of the agreed upon Plan] II [Mem. Opin. at 150] The Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. [Mem. Opin. at 170; emphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM , the LRSD has not even - identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate (much less provided evidence of the assessment or evaluation of each program). [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 23.] (5.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mem . Opin. at 151- 152; 153; 156-158], the LRSD properly concluded that it must each year, among other things, complete several compreh~nsive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students . \" [Plan Section 2. 7] 1 (6. ) On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda.\". The regulation 1 . LRSD Compliance Plan, filed March 14, 2003, at 7. 3 / sets forth standards and procedures for program evaluations in the - LRSD. [See LRSD Submission of March 14, 2003, Appendix l] It provides in part (at 5) that \"the first meetings [of the committee responsible for evaluating a particular program] will be devoted to the following tasks . D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, 'Has this curriculum\\instruction program been effective i .n improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.)\" (7.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the \"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation\" authored by Dr. Steven M. Ross and others of the Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis. The LRSD approved a list of research questions for this study not including the auestion quoted in para. 6 1 identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 2 Indeed,the Literacy Evaluation states (at 4): \"The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of Africa:n American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District.\" (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document regarding the \"Page 148\" evaluations. It is titled \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Progr~m Evaluations in Little Rock School District.\",[filed by LRSD on March 14~ 2003] The document articulates, among others, 2 See Literacy Evaluation at 1 (research questions), at 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 4 the following premise [Plaintiffs' Notice ... , March 14, 2003, at - 1]: Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment.' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, now it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. (9 .) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows (at 3): (10.) . [Dr. Ross] also describ.ed the program evaluation process, which included a classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district .. Respectfully, the O TTr'\\-\"':\\ 1 1 V \"-.\u0026amp;..._.,..I.. ..L. text of the Literacy Evaluation shows, consistent with its stated purpose, that it \"focused] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data .\" The description of programs is exceedingly terse and, at grade levels 10-12, almost non-existent. [Literacy Evaluatton at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess ~ctual program implementation. This is the case because the funding which the LRSD provided to Dr. Ross and his Center was not sufficient to pay for classroom observation. This study can provide little help to answer the question \"whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners.\" ,In this regard, it is noteworthy that LRSD Regulation IL-Rl includes, as one 5 / i -l criterion for identifying evaluation topics, the following question - [at 4] : \"Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the prograrn?\"3 ( 11.) Other elements of LRSD policy IL-Rl, as well as the professional standards on which the LRSD standards drew, buttress Joshua Intervenors' contention that the Literacy Evaluation falls short of the mark when judged in the light of the objectives of the court's Compliance Remedy (i.e., conducting PROGRAM evaluations for a particular purpose.) (a.) LRSD policy IL-Rl contains the following content: Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. [at 3) \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" G:C:  Write a clear description .. of the curriculum\\ in3truction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. [at 4-5) (b.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") provides that \"all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Cammi ttee on Standards for Education Evaluation.\" Policy IL-Rl further identifies these standards; they are The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) . These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards\" [at 127-28): 3 The Literacy Evaluation does inform the LR,SD that it must determine whther it has a literacy program at grades 6-12 and, as well, assess the need to communicate the content of the program to teachers. See Evaluation at 43 (first paragraph}. 6 / STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It is necessary for the evaluator to gain a solid understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons of the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to describe orally, and, if possible, in wri ting--the intended and actual program with reference to such characteristics .as personnel, cost, procedures, location, facilities, setting, activities, objectives, natrire of participation, and potential side effects ... C. Engage independ~nt observers to describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved ... (1 2 .) The LRSD provides as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003\" (December 2003 ) . The dos:;ument provides only a brief general description of the math and science programs evaluated. [at 9-10] It notes the phasing in of the program in the period 1998-1999 to 2002-03 [at 7-~], with grades 10-12 reached in the school year 200 ?. -03. [i3t. 9] The evaluation recognizes the importance of actual implemen~ation in the classroom. [at 11, 106, 107] It identifies three methods utilized 7 / to secure data on this matter, but does not report any results. [at - 11] With regard to the description of the program evaluated and its implementation, this evaluation falls short of the LRSD and professional standards cited above. Consequently, one can not determine whether the program or any component of it is responsible for any of the outcomes cited in the report. ( 13.) The weakness of the \"Page 148\" evaluations also evidences the lack of capacity of the LRSD to fulfill paragraphs (a) and (A) of the Compliance Remedy. [Mem. Opin. at 170-171] See infra, para. 15 and (14.) The ODM Report of March 30, 2no4, states: \"Contrary to the spirit of the regulation for program evaluation, the [LRSD] literacy evaluation team's involvement was limited to tacit approval of . the evaluation  plan and assisting with data - collection . \" [at 16] This is a negative factor in terms of the system's developing internal capacity for conducting evaluations and assessments . B. The Preparation of the Page 148 Evaluations (15.) The LRSD did not comply in substance with the requirement of the court-ordered remedy that it [prepare] the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report . [Compliance Remedy, Mem. Opin. at 170] The evaluations filed by the LRSD on March 14, 2003 do not satisfy the sLandards for evaluations set forth in Regulation ~LRl, o~ the professional standards on which they are ~ased. See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 148 8 'Evaluations,'\" filed April 14, 2003; ODM Report, March 30, 2004, - at 21 (citing views of Dr. Ross \"that, for the most part, the evaluations of the subject programs 'were worthless'\" and \"that the evaluations were of little or no use to the district.\") C. The Use of Evaluation and Assessment Results (16.) The LRSD provides no discussion of any use made of the results of evaluation/assessment in the science area . [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 15] (17.) The LRSD did not use the \"page 148 [evaluations]\" \"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.\" [Compliance Remedy, Mem.Opin . . Qt 171-7-2] Th:e1.-e is no suggestion of such use in either the March 14, 2003 submission or the March 12, 2004 submission of the LRSD; see also ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 22. D. The Failure of the LRSD to Provide Information ( 18.) Subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has acted in a manner to limit the availability of information about its compliance activities . (a) LRSD Policy IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda\") adopted by the LRSD on October 10, 2002, provides in part (at 5) that the \"team leader\" for each evaluation shall G. Plan wa vs to Provide reaular oroaress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reoorts to the Superintendent's Cabinet an.d\\or Compliance team) to stakeholders, including the Associate ' Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, _the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), 9 / and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). - Thereafter , the LRSD did not implement this provision . (b) On April 8, 2003, as part of the Section 8 process, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors directed a letter to the LRSD concerning the plan for carrying out evaluations and the provision to Joshua of information on observation of the educational program within several schools . The LRSD ignored this letter, Attachment A hereto. (c) The Joshua also discussed their concerns regarding the LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy in a letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM on March 10, 2004, a copy of which was provided to counsel for the school district. hereto. E . Other Factors This letter is Attachment B LRSD submissions subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy do not show that in that period the district worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to remediate the racial academic achievement disparities which continue to exist in the LRSD. See, for example, the test data in the math-science evaluation. The LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Pulaski . County School District Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989 (as Revised September 28 , 1989), Section IIIF( a,c), III-G . CONCLUSTON The LRSD has neither completed adequately the products which this court required, nor demonstrated the capacity to carry on 10 adequately in the evaluation/assessment sphere without court - supervision and monitoring. Therefore, the LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional school years. Respectfully submitted, ~-tG 1\"2-~~v- Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal . Defense- and- . Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 11 J hn W. Walk:er (./Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 / I on all a copy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served counsel of record on this 15th day of April, 2004 by placing of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. f}L7l2 l\u0026lt;)vJiw-, LI- 12 / JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITn.E ROCK, AB.KANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER OF COUNSEL. SHAWNCIDLDS ROBERT McHENRY. PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD Lrrru RocK, ARKANSAS 12210 PHONE: 1501) 372-3425  F.4.X (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbellnec Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge.\u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD Dear Clay: April 8, 2003 This letter is a follow up to the issues raised by Joshua Intervenors regarding implementation of the evaluation remedy. As you will recall, Ann Marshall has chaired two meetings on this matter. Joshua lntervenors requested that the LRSD a.dd to the matters to be the subject of full evaluation the providing of interventions for students failing to meet standards. We took the position that this area is of particular importance to the class which. we represent. We also requested that the evaluation standards be.modified to guarantee that the outside -consultant is in charge of the evaluation product for the area for which he or she is hired. We have had no respoo:')e as to whether the LRSD school board has adopted our two suggestions. Please inform us of the school board's decision on each of these matters and the date of action by the Board. At each of the meeting chaired by Ms. Marshall, we were informed by Dr Lesley about detailed reviews of teaching practices and other factors within several schools. We were.twice told that we would receive copies of the reports for these schools. We have yet to receive the reports and ask that they be provided promptly. At the second meeting, Dr. Lesley indicated that she had in mind ex~erts to recommend to work on each of the comprehensive evaluations. However, she declined at that time to identify those persons. Please inform us of the experts who have been selected to work on each of the evaluations and provide us with a copy of the curriculum vitae if we have not already been provided a copy. ff the schedule for producing the comprehensive evaluations has been changed, please provide us a copy of the revised schedule. As we are in need of deciding whether to raise any of these matters before the court, . we / Attachment A Page 2 - Letter dated April 8, 2003 would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. Sincerely, Robert Pressman cc: Ms. Ann Marshall / JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS lvis. Ann S. 1:vfarshaJl, Monitor Office ofDesegregati.on monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 A.\"'l'ORNEY .Af! LAW 1723 BROADWAY 1rrrLE RoCK, .ARKANsAs 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHEN-:RY, P.A.: DONNAJ. McHENRY  8210 liF.NDERSON RaAJl   L1Trr.E ROCK, AElw!SAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  F.AX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net . Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the ~ourt  is c.011ceri-1ed, a s ;;,.re are, about impr.uving the acadernic .achit:vement OI ...~ _Jiica!I~l...m.erica:r1 students. o.ur belief is th.at ~11 of the components oftheJ?lan were intended to work :hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the .process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the D_i.strict's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all pro grams as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Rep0rt were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very pur_poses of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no :further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Prow.am Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation.of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock Sahool District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. 1:vJr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process o.utlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Lit'-J.e Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as, you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 1 / Attachment B We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that.we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to \"No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State  accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicrt outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its cqmpliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programswould be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is that achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your,attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's :use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediati.ng the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, pag~ 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or  correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of Afiican American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for exampie. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion ii; in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have :o.ot successfully addressed African American  student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossiqle to attain. 2 / I 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her :findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th. grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th. graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page i 70, paragraph A , contemplates the use of this data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding-the participation .of African.American students in Pre-AP and AP courses :which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other pro grams aimed at improving African American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement ofBencbmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic .in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). . -~ 12) The evaluation reports discussed prnfessional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. .., .J The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because ofyqur designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for OD.M by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. TWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson N.fr. Chris Reller Nk Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAM FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS K LITTLE ROCK DIVISION Br,.:-t-,:......!.,J.,:.....-L.l,,.~:::::..=:~::::-== LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. APR 21 2004 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by noon, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED this / f;{ty of April, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. 8 5 8 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED APR 21 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 April 20, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed ADE's Response to the Court's Order of April 19, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 April 20, 2004 MAH Enclosure cc: Scott Smith (w/enclosure) Very truly yours, ~r Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OISTRICi ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMi:....n11.__, K LITTLE ROCK DIVISION .B-,~~~w.:::..c....=~~= 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 APR 1 g 2004 D OFF/Cf OF ESEGREGAT/ON MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by nrnn, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. ~tf IT IS SO ORDERED this Jj!_ day of April, 2004. DNlHOllNOW NOllVD3HD3S3a ~033~~0 eAs,kG(4,~D s,R,c, xouR, RKANsAs ~DOZ 8 Z ~dV APR 2 f 1AnL JAMts ,uu, By: W. MccoRMA C3Al3~3H IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT C  CK, CLE Rk EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL . .  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXIIlBIT LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The )6shua\u0026lt;Interverio:rs rriay use tliefoliowing exmbits~dunng the hearing scheduled for ,. ':. :: ~- ...... .:.~!' ; .. :,, : - -:- ~-;::~.i.;~1: -.~::~;. ,',!-~ . . ;1~~ : . . ~:...:::, :1 r ... r  . . : April 26 and 27, 2004: ,.!. : 1   1) LR.Sb Policy IL (\"Evaluati\u0026lt;?n of Instructional Programs,,J; CX 575   - 2) LRSD :Regulation IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda)  3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Ye~ Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Intervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25, 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley): a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 b) Approval ofthe SEDL's Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21, 2002 : i\".,f)] ; ; ,ri : c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Edtic\"atiori'D'evelopment Lab (SEDL\\ November 21, 2002 - -  \"  d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 f) Onward to Excellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) 7) Letter from Chris Heller to Ann Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9). LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 11) The LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Seriior Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade .to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race 14) Vita, Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head of the Educational Organizatien and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted, 0J 9 I 0 (kv~ t/~ f 1~ ,i1}rYVJfi'\"' .. ; . , Robert Pressman i hA 22 Locust Avenue g(v  Lexington , MA 02421 781 - 862 - 1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachk.in Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Str eet New York, NY 10013-2897 212 - 965-2200 ~n w( Walker /~ickey Hicks / John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock , AR 501-374-3758 Ark . 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE P .A. 72206 I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21st day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage ' ,') I' / prepaid . .,, ~ ,, , ti~ :;f utb r,, RECEIVED uflLEO EASTERN \\s\\tfwcr COURT ICT ARKANSAS - APR 2 8 2004 APR 2 12004 '\\MfSW OFRCEOF :  McCORMACK CL DESEGREGATION MON!i0RlNG --- , ERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEPCLERK - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors may call thefollowing persons as witnesses du.....:...ng the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, L~SD - 10 minutes 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, LRSD - 10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCS SD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, Pr ssman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955  [/Rickey Hicks Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones   -      .....  President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21st day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of saG in the United 1hStates mail postage prepaid. _ j ~ \\ I i r\\l._ 1 1 \\ / /\\ . \\.. /, (V ,V\\./\\J ~ ( V ; fl/jlJ ( ( t l~V . IOIO\u0026lt;I t--'. 4 As,}!kt,('m,f D Ots-,-Rtc-,- COI.Jttr AR~'-'Si\\s . APR 2 1 ,n,.L JA.MEs c.w, Sy: w. MccoRMA. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C Cl(, CLER}( EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS Dt:pC(ERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE J,?SHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS Thl'TERVENORS Toe Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\"), CX 575 2) LR.SD Regulation IL-Rl (''Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Imervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25. 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bom:rie A. Lesley): v~ i 1 a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002  V,1 ~=-b) Approval oft:he SEDL's Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21 , 2002  v ~ /  ., c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002 '- ,/ VtJ l. m d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 .,, ;9 v ~, 1. t:: e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002   v~I-!!1- ) Onward to E.'Ccellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 v g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 l s ~ e ,. / ) \\/4 1.-u:r h) Vital Link program Evaluation. February 13, 2003 / Vo . IY- i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003   I-fV j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003  --- \\/4,/ ~ k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 / Vt} l. fY 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 / 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003)  7) Letter from Chris Heller to Aon Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 / 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 / 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation C. 1~ 6,, ,_, 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 ( i: ,., D   11) Toe LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 f .t\\D~l~\"f) 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Senior ~ Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race .' 14) Vita. Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. ? Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted, l ! , ! ~ST#~G'sstfo . '\"''er OIJF(r ;\\.q ~S,\\,s APR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~W. I /$f EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAs\u0026gt;'~  Mccol?M-4cK. WESTERN DMSION ' CLf:Rk DepCWfRK LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSffiJA. ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE .JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as v.:itncsscs d~...ng the henring scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - l hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 11/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - I hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, LRSD - 10 minmes 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, lRSD - 1 0 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCS SD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rocle School District. f . J [} . ~-J;, f\u0026amp;~,J . irs rt ressman ry}ri\"n 22 Locust. Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones     President \u0026amp; Directer-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Respectfully submitted, '.__ - c:1Lrh - ;1-  ohn W. Walker ~' ickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy cf the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21 st day of April, 2004 ;~e~!f~ing a copy of 5T\\ int Ut;f:~; mail postage \\ I . 1 t . r+ 0 ,__,. .-. '..!.-1 \\., \\..,,I) t ' V d V ;,., - - - - - - -------- ---------- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED APR 21 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 April 20, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed ADE's Response to the Court's Order of April 19, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 April20, 2004 MAH Enclosure cc: Scott Smith (w/enclosure) Very truly yours, ~T Assistant Attorney General FIL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTE.\u0026amp;s~sTR1~'2RT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS N DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 f 20()/f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK -----~=,:JP~J~AilluNT~F DEPCU::RK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL APR 2 ,' 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfflNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST The Little Rock School District expects to call the following witnesses and present the following exhibits at the hearing scheduled to being on April 26, 2004, except Dr. Lesley, whose testimony will be presented by deposition. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WITNESS LIST Dr. Steven M. Ross, Director, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, former LRSD Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dr. Ed Williams, LRSD Research Specialist - expected direct examination time -30 minutes; Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes; Page 1 of 4 6. 7. Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes; Vanessa Cleaver, Director of National Science Foundation Grant - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Program Evaluations and Accompanying Memoranda submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval on October 24, 2002, November 21 , 2002, December 19, 2002, February 13, 2003 and February 27, 2003 (These were attached to our Notice of Filing on March 14, 2003 in Volumes I - IV); 2. September 26, 2002 Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03; 3. October 4, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley transmitting Compliance Plan to counsel and Ms. Marshall; 4. October 10, 2002 memo to Dr. Ken James from Ann Marshall re LRSD 's Compliance Plan 5. October 10, 2002 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Bonnie Lesley; 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. October 11 , 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall regarding Compliance Remedy; October 17, 2002 Request for Qualifications of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant; October 25, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall; November 4, 2002 letter to John Walker and Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley; Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in LRSD prepared by Dr. Ross; December 3, 2002 letter to Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley; December 3, 2002 letter to John Walker from Bonnie Lesley; January 27, 2003 Memo to Dr. Ken James from Dr. Bonnie Lesley regarding contracted Services - Dr.Ross; February 13, 2003 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Lesley regarding Information on Completion of Eight Program Evaluations for Submission to Federal Court Page 2 of 4 15. April 8, 2003 letter from John Walker to Clay Fendley; 16. Response to ODM and Joshua Objections, by Dr. Steven M. Ross; 17. Changes in Science Curriculum, by Dennis Glasgow; 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~~9.lL- ---- -~::~~:-. -....... , -----.. \u0026gt; B ~,,.,---q..=:\u0026amp;4,1~2J~~:_;_f,,,c:..4+~........,,.,... Page 3 of 4 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 April 21, 2004: 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 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 Page 4 of 4 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Lillie Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson B-ille MaryJane Rf.\"bick Lillie Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas April 30, 2004 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 . Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, :ti- m1t General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier - - ------ ---------- --- 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 April 2004. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, Attorney, 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 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, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 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 April 30, 2004 Based on the information available at March 31, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, 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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1759","title":"Court filings regarding scheduling letter, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Joshua intervenors', Knight intervenors', and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) responses to court order, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and 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":["2004-03-17/2004-03-31"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Project management","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding scheduling letter, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Joshua intervenors', Knight intervenors', and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) responses to court order, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and 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/1759"],"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":["83 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, three orders; Court of Appeals scheduling letter; District Court, response to court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to court order by Knight intervenors; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to order; District Court, supplement to response to Court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, NLRSD response to Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''The Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the Court's compliance remedy''; 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.    \\ \\ RECE i ~ED FILED tUt AR J. \" l'!fv1.lQ 4, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFF!::: '.' '.' DESEGREr.mr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AME MAR 1 ?. 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION y: ___ \"=~v.u~~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DNIHOllNOW NOllV~31:W3S30 :lO 33H:l0 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~OOl 8 I ~vw ORDER Lawyers for the parties will please provide the following information: 1. Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"employee\" is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)? 2. The dates of any such attorney-client relationship. 3. Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM. 4. If you deem it proper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. 5. If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. \"Attorney-client,\" \"representation,\" and \"consultation\" are to be construed broadly. As an example, a telephone conversation during which the employee seeks to employ a lawyer, or seeks - legal advice of any nature, whether or not it is related to an ODM matter ( even on a one-time - basis) is \"representation.\" A would-be client who talks with a lawyer falls within the definitions above. \"[W]ould-be clients are virtually indistinguishable from 'actual ' clients during the period in which a relationship is under consideration ... \"1 If, for example, a person calls a lawyer, describes a car wreck, and asks, \"has the statute of limitations run\" and the lawyer answers with a definitive, monosyllabic, \"yes,\" this is sufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship for that brief period of time. Generally, see also the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6: I 03 and 1.6: 105. Your response to this order must be filed by noon on Friday, March 26, 2004. IT IS SO ORDERED this _/2Tlt,arch, 2004. d,, UN' ~J/r!;;UDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. 1Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6:115 at 168.17. ~srRl5!4,~ D o1srR1cr couRr IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT MAR f B AR!vws,4,s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMt:s VV 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION .By;  MccoRMAc K, CLt:Rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER I. In response to an Order, entered yesterday (March 17, 2004) Mr. John W. Walker, one of Joshua Intervenor' s lawyers, has fax ed a letter to me today, a copy of which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A. 2. Among several other things Mr. Walker states, \"we do not represent any member of the ODM staff present or past as far as we know. I add the 'as far as we know caveat' (sic) because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM.\" 3. Let's take a look at the record. On October 15, 2002, Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget\" (Doc. No. 3686). The first paragraph of this pleading reads as follows: It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights (emphasis added). 841 4. Then, ten days later (on October 25, 2002), Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed yet another pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff' (Doc. No. 3691), with the following first paragraph: On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2001 . Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this court. ( emphasis added) 5. The quotes in the two paragraphs above appear to establish beyond peradventure that Joshua Intervenors' lawyers represented an employee of the ODM in October of 2002 . Furthermore, the Order entered yesterday makes it clear that this is exactly the type of information to be disclosed. 6. The March 18, 2004 letter asserts that Joshua Intervenors ' lawyers do not know the identity of past or present ODM employees. I do not want to practice law for any party, but I believe that, if I were in this situation as a lawyer, I would call or write the ODM and get a complete list of these employees. 7. I have reviewed the Order entered yesterday again -- after receiving the fax letter from Joshua Intervenors' lawyers today -- and I must immodestly admit that I believe it is a model of clarity. It can be faulted, if it is to be faulted at all, for redundancy; but I intentionally made it longer than I normally would so that it would not be misunderstood. 8. Joshua Intervenors' lawyers should carefully check their memories and records to determine if they represent, or have represented, any other employees of the ODM ( other than Ms. Bryant). Likewise, counsel for the other parties should do the same. Once this is done, 2 counsel for each party should proceed to prepare a pleading which will comply with the remainder of yesterday's Order. r--1-f IT IS SO ORDERED t~is Ji day of March, 2004. 3 !))~ fl_UuJ,v_ UNifED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. W ILSON, JR. MAR.18.2004 10:19AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATroRNEY AT LAW 1723 BRoADWAY 1rrrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELE!\u0026gt;SONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 874-4187 March 18, 2004 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: NO.498 OF COUNSEL ROBERT MclIENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McP.ENR'f 8210 HE!IDERSON RoAO L1'rrLE RoCK, .AJlxt.NS . .'J! 72210 P!!ONll: (601) 372-342/i  F,IA (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: =-hinuyd@swbell.uet RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2004 (j'm . R : Wilson, Jr E i- District Judge   of Arkansas I am writing to provide the Court a preliminary report in reply to the Order herein dated March 17, 2004. The Order appears to invite, if not require, a responsive pleading. By this letter I am requesting further instruction as to the form the expected final response should take.  With respect to question one (1 ), I have spoken with the other attorneys associated with me, including those not in my firm as such, and inform the Court that the answer we provide is that we do not represent any me!!).j:i_~r of the ODM staff present or past~ far as we k.now. I add the \"as fu as we know cave ~t\" because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM. There was 9. period when I believe ODM employed certain e;,,,.-perts and there may have been some part-time or temporary employees hired from time to time by ODM. With respect to the other questions I do not believe them to applicable in view of the answer to proffered question number one, Moreover, questions three through five invite, if not direct, responses to any imaginary hypothetical situation. I therefore cannot provide an answer to a question which I do not fully comprehend and which is not before me in an actual case. I do wish and intend to reply to the Court, however. Accordingly, I request clarification regarding me last three questions. In making the above report I recall that Judge Susan Webber Wright observed that ODM was not represented by counsel at which point she invited me to begin the questioning of ODM. The position that we took at the hearing on behalf of Joshua was consistent with OD M's and contrary to LRSD's. The hearing about which I speak involve extensive inquiries into LRSD's budgeting process and th.at occurred some seven or eight years ago. I deemed it proper men., as I do now, to reply to the Court. Our position was that LRSD was not meeting its budgeting obligations, ODM staff presented expert testimony to that point which I generally elicii:ed and LRSD opposed it. MAR.18.2004 10=19AM Page Two March 18, 2004 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.498 This is our best understanding of how to reply to the Courr' s Order but if our understanding is incomplete, I respectfully request further guidance from the Court for the Joshua counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray R~spectli;llY su)imitte'7, ;~~ 1-rD/ ~'7l t/i John W. Walker \"Li TO: DATE: FAXCOVERSHEET - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number; 501-604 5149 Chris Heller 376-2147 Sam Jones 376-9442 Steve Jones 375-1027 John Walker 374-4187 Robert Pressman 781 -862-1955 Timothy Gauger 682-2591 . Mark Hagemeier 682-2591 Ann Marshall 371-0100 Mark Burnette 375-1940 \"3. / B- O'f c~ e,u~~./, ~ .:~ ;;-~ There are__ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~/--- ?Z-rrr-- Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi on, Jr .. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 1 8 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLER' By: ' I 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. MAR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3839). Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education requests that Mr. Dennis Hansen be withdrawn as counsel since he is no longer actively participating in the day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's Office. Defendant requests that Mr. Mark Hagemeier be substituted as counsel of record. For good cause shown, separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel is GRANTED.  (7--r;,::. IT IS SO ORDERED this / 0 day of March, 2004. 842 DEP CLER: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - rlAEL E. GANS Clerk of Court Mr. Will Bond BOND \u0026amp; O'BRIEN 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 THOMAS F. EAGLETON COURT HOUSE ROOM 24.329 111 S. 10TH STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102 March 18, 2004 VOICE 1314) 244-2400 FAX (314) 244-2780 www.ca8 .uscourts.gov RECEuVED MAR 2 ;- 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: 03-3088 Re: 03-3404 Greg Bollen vs. Lorene Joshua Pulaski Cty . School vs. Greg Bollen Dear Counsel: The court has decided that they will hear this appeal via telephone conference sometime in May. The exact date will be determined at a later time . If you have any conflicts during the month of May, please bring them to our attention at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. tab cc : John W. Walker Rickey H. Hicks Robert Pressman Clayton Roy Blackstock Mark Burnett M. Samuel Jones III Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher JoH~ellne . Stephen w. Jones Ann Marshall Timothy Gauger Sincerel Trish Calendar Coordinator District Court/Agency Case Number(s) : 4:82-CV-866 WRW RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 22, 2004 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Response to Court Order by Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 22, 2004 MAH Enclosures Very truly yours, ~ ~~y Assistant Attorney General 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. RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, state: 1. Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") - supplied the Office of the Attorney General with a list of past and present employees. 2. Undersigned has circulated this list of past and present ODM employees to attorneys within the Office of the Attorney General who have worked on this matter. 3. Tim Gauger, Dennis Hansen, and Mark Hagemeier have never represented a past or present employee of ODM. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General MARK A. HAG IER, #9 Assistant Atto:; en:l 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ---- ----- -------------------- - 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 March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hageer 2 Rec Er 67ED MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS AND SNEDDON, PLLC MA\\ 2 ~1 2004 Dr:S'\" OFFICE OF EUGENE R. WARREN (1909-1980) MICHAEL W. MITCHELL* CLAYTON R. BLACKSTOCK** MARCIA BARNES JACK WAGONER III DAVID IVERS EMILY SNEDDON MARK BURNETTE OLIVER HAHN Mr. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ATIORNEYS 1010 WEST THIRD STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 378-7870 www .mbbwi.com Writer's e-mail: mburnette@mbbwi.com March 25, 2004 1: i:Gl1EG11T:O:, ?.lDi'fTDR!W~ MAILING ADDRESS P.O . BOX 1510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-1510 TELEFAX 501-375-1940 *CERTIFIED IN CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCACY BY NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY ** ALSO LICENSED IN TEXAS Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldrege \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Ste. 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et. al. U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Ms. Marshail and Gentlemen: I enclose herein a file-marked copy of a Response to Court Order by Knight Intervenors. MTB/dm Encl. Very truly yours, Mark T. Burnette 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, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FILED U.S. o:::~;:_ ICT COURT EASTER:, C,::;:,:..1..:-;- K-;.KANSAS MAR 2 5 2004 JAMES W. McCOri.:.,,.\\SK, CLERK By:.---------;:;-=-;~;-;; C:::? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, state: 1. Undersigned counsel obtained a roster of ODM employees and distributed the roster to all current attorneys in this firm. 2. No attorney client relationship has existed between any of the listed employees of ODM and an attorney in this firm. It may also be worth noting that Emily Sneddon, a partner in this firm, was employed as a law clerk in the office of the Honorable Susan Webber Wright during a period when Judge Wright presided over this case. Ms. Sneddon does not participate in the case in her current position. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: 72:lMfl~/1/Yldtv Mark Burnette N # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this.24\"\" day of March, 2004: ,;f.at?I Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: 2?kJ,/3trA21d/ Mirk Burnette BAR NO. 88078 R.ECEjVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF - ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED U.S. DI STRICT COURT EASTERN  : STRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 6 2004 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ________ __,= PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. (\"Joshua\"), Intervenors herein, by their undersigned attorneys, submit this JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER and state the following: FACTS On October 15, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM1 Budget.\" Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, \"It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court (sic) is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court (sic) has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights.\" Oct. I 5, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget, 1. The \"member of the ODM staff' referred to in that pleading is Linda Bryant (\"Ms. Bryant\"). Joshua did not file its pleading to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant. Joshua' s sole purpose for filing the pleading was to gain access to documents and other materials so that 1 ODM is the Office of Desegregation Monitoring created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1990. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). Joshua could \"make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation.\" Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget ~~ 5(a), 5(b); see also Oct. 15, 2002 Mem. Concerning the ODM Budget. On October 16, 2002, the Court denied Joshua's motion without prejudice, holding it was premature. Oct. 16, 2002 Order. On October 25, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled, \"The Joshua Intervenor's (sic) Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff.\" Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, \"On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Court.\" Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff~ 1. Again, the purpose of this particular pleading was not to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant, rather, Joshua simply wanted the opportunity to provide its input into the budget of the ODM prior to the Court ordering a reduction of its budget. Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff at 2. Holding that the motion for a stay was moot, the Court denied Joshua's motion the same day Joshua filed it. Oct. 25, 2002 Order. On March 17, 2004, the Court entered an order requesting each party's attorneys to answer the following questions: (1) Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"employee is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)?\"; (2) The Dates of any such attorney-client relationship; (3) Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM; (4) If you deem it proper, please explain your position in 2 exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority; (5) If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority.\" Mar. 17, 2004 Order. APPLICABLE LAW Before answering the Court's inquiries, a discussion of the applicable law is appropriate. On May 1, 1980, the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas adopted the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, codified at the Appendix to the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rule IV.B of the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides in relevant part, \" .. . The Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court is the Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the highest court of the state in which this Court sits, as amended from time to time by that state court, except as otherwise provided by specific Rule of this Court after consideration of comments by representatives of bar associations within the state.\" In 1985, the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted the American Bar Association 's Model Rules of Professional Conduct as the State of Arkansas's code of professional responsibility. Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1119, 1132 n.19 (E.D. Ark. 1999) (citing In re Arkansas Bar Ass ' n, 287 Ark. 495, 702 S.W.2d 326 (1985)). Thus, the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct is the starting point for analyzing the ethical duties of lawyers practicing before this Court. Model Fed. R. of Disciplinary Enforcement IV.B . In order to determine a lawyer's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive lav.r external to the .. 1odel Rules of Professional Conduct determine whether a client-la,.vyer relationship exists. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. Most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal ,., .) - services and the lawyer has agreed to do so. See id. (emphasis added). But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 1.62 , that may attach when the lawyer agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established. See id. Whether a clientlawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact. See id; see also Cortinez v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 332 Ark. 455, 464, 966 S.W.2d 251 (1998). The attorney-client relationship is not simply the casual assistance of a member of the bar, but is an intimate process of consultation and planning which culminates in a state of trust and confidence between the client and his attorney. Clements v. State, 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991) (citing Smith v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles, 440 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1968); McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18 (Ak. 1974); People v. Davis, 449 N.E2d 237 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983); In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)). 2 The text of Rule 1.6 provides: Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of information. (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b ). (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: ( 1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act; or (2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the !a,.,,yer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client. (c) Neither this Rule nor Rule 1.8(b) nor Rule l.16(d) prevents the lawyer from giving notice of the fact of withdrawal, and the lawyer may also withdraw or disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. 4 The relationship is not dependent only an express agreement, it may be implied on the part of an attorney who acts in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter. Sexton v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 295 Ark. 141 , 147 (747 S.W.2d 94 (1988) (Hays \u0026amp; Glaze, JJ., dissenting) (citing Hirsch Bros. \u0026amp; Co. v. R.E. Kennington Co., 124 So. 344 (Miss. 1929); 88 A.LR. 1; 7A C.J.S.  169). Although the Model Rules are silent on the subject, the Supreme Com1 of Arkansas has stated that attorneys remain obligated to avoid any \"appearance of impropriety.\" Arkansas Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2002-347 (citing Saline Mem'l Hosp. v. Berry, 321 Ark. 588, 906 S.W.2d 297 (1995); Burnette v. Moman, 303 Ark. 150, 794 S.W.2d _145 (1990)). Joshua will now turn to answering the Court's questions. I. JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S \"REPRESENTATION\" OF MS. BRYANT On or about October 14, 2002, Ms. Bryant informed Joshua's attorney that her employment with the ODM was about to be terminated and sought counsel regarding her legal rights. Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget 1 1; Oct. 25 , 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff 1 1. When Ms. Bryant communicated her desire to have Joshua's attorney explain her legal rights to her, at that specific moment the duty of confidentiality codified in Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 1.6 was triggered. Scope, Model R. of Prof 1 Conduct 1 3. Upon learning where Ms. Bryant worked and what relief she was seeking, Joshua's attorney told her in unambiguous terms that he could not represent her and that she needed to look elsewhere Lu ublain representation. Joshua's attorney did not rendef any substantive advice, such as informing her of the statute of limitations or the remedies available to her or what administrative measures she had to take prior to obtaining judicial relief. 5 In fact, Joshua's attorney strictly followed Model R. of Profl Conduct 4.33 and gave Ms. Bryant no advice other than to find another attorney. Model R. of Profs Conduct 4.3 cmt. (comparing Rule 4.3 to American Bar Association rule DR 7-104(A)(2) and stating that a lawyer shall not give advice to a person who is not represented by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel). Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant and offered no substantive legal advice in the course of declining the representation, most of the other duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship did not attach. Scope, Model R. of Prof! Conduct ,r 3 (stating \"most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal services and the lawyer has agreed to do so\") (emphasis added). Had Ms. Bryant communicated information to Joshua's attorney that was materially adverse to another party in this case (which she most certainly did not), it is arguable that Joshua's attorney would be barred from using that information by Model Rules 1.6 and l.7(b). Rule 1.7(b) provides, \"A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests.\" In the instant case, nothing Ms. Bryant told Joshua's attorney could be reasonably construed to be adverse to the Joshua Intervenors or perhaps more importantly, to the ODM. The ODM is not a party to this case. In fact, Joshua and ODM's interests and efforts are often congruent in that Joshua and the ODM have a duty to monitor the 3 The text of Rule 4.3 provides: Rule 4.3. Dealing with unrepresented person. In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. 6 - school districts ' compliance with their desegregation obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1. 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding, \"As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of this opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Comi on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate\"). In 1978 or 1979, Joshua's attorney was plaintiffs' counsel  in a federal class action discrimination lawsuit against First National Bank in a case styled Raymond Smith v. First Nat'! Bank. Ms. Bryant was a member of the plaintiffs' class, but was not a named plaintiff or class representative. This representation lasted approximately two years and terminated prior to the filing of the instant case and nearly a decade prior to the OD M's creation. Thus, in answer to the Court's first query, Joshua's attorney owes a Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality to Ms. Bryant stemming from her seeking his legal advice and his declining to give it in connection with her employment with the ODM, because an attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney formed for the period in which Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. That relationship, however, terminated when Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant, and that termination relieved Joshua's attorney of most of the duties that typically flow from an attorney-client relationship. See id. Joshua's attorney also owes a duty of confidentiality to Ms. 7 Bryant based on her membership in the class of plaintiffs in the Ravmond Smith case. That attorney-client relationship terminated over twenty years ago and preceded the filing of this case and the creation of the ODM. II. THE DATES OF JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S \"ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP\" Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith lasted from 1978 or 1979 until 1980 or 1981. Ms. Bryant's fleeting attorney-client relationship with Joshua's attorney in connection with her employment with the ODM occurred on or about October 14. 2002. The relationship terminated on that same date. III. THE PROPRIETY OF REPRESENTING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ODM This question is difficult to answer given the hypothetical nature in which it is posed. In essence, the Court is seeking an advisory opinion from the attorneys in this case. While the Court has the discretion to do this, exercising that discretion raises the same issues for the attorneys as the Court itself would face were the attorneys to seek an advisory opinion from the Court. An advisory opinion is one rendered when no justiciable case or controversy exists. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 93, 95 (1968). Under Article III, courts are required to \"avoid issuing advisory opinions based upon hypothetical situations.\" Briggs v. Ohio Elections Comm'n 61 F.3d 487, 493 (6th Cir. 1995). A court's judgment \"must resolve a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what th .. 1\"'\\\" \\\"O\"lrl ho \"pen,, h\" pothetic\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l cet of .::ark\" prPicer 'I l\\Te,,,lrirlr 4')') TT Q io.;; LI.QI (107\u0026lt;;) \\. J.J. ..... J.'-4'1' 'I' 1,,t.J.'-6. V .._,\\A. J.\\A.J.J J..1.1,..1.\\A.._, 1;...,.,._,. J..._,.1.-.14 .4, ',f' .1.\".1..1.J.\"-I ,;,..,,;,.., .._.,  ._,,_,_,,_,, I \\ /I _,, Determining whether an opinion would be advisory is interrelated with the question of whether there exists a case or controversy. State of Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. United States Dep't of 8 Transp. 766 F.2d 228, 232 (6th Cir. 1985). The requirements of standing, ripeness, and mootness guard against the issuing of advisory opinions. See id. With that said, Joshua will answer the question based on the factual predicate set forth in Sections I and II of this pleading. Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant in connection with her employment with the ODM and in so doing fastidiously avoided rendering any substantive legal advice, the ephemeral attorney-client relationship created and terminated on October 14, 2002 does not conflict with any duties Joshua's attorney owes to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because the brief encounter between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney contained none of the elements that attend the conventional, substantive attorney-client relationship. Clements v. State. 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991). Thus, under this particular set of facts, there was and is nothing improper vis-a-vis the instant case about Joshua's counsel meeting with Ms. Bryant on October 14, 2002, listening to her request for representation, and declining to provide that representation. Likewise, Ms. Bryant's status a class member in the Raymond Smith does nothing to compromise Joshua's attorney's duties to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because that representation started and ended prior to the filing of the instant case and prior to the ODM's creation. Moreover, that representation did not involve any of the parties or issues in this case. Therefore, that former representation in light of this case was also proper. There are countless scenarios under which an attorney for a pa1iy in this case could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking representation in myriad areas of the law, therefore, Joshua cannot opine on the propriety of representing an employee of the ODM in 9 representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the - representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential conflict Joshua's attorney might have with another client, a third party, or any party to this case. Model R. ofProf'l Conduct l.16(a)(l), l.7(b).  Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith does not create a conflict because it started and ended prior to this case being filed. Joshua hopes it has answered the questions put to it by the Court in a satisfactory manner. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ,tp- ToM LU. John W. Walker Ark. Sup. Ct. Reg. No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206-1250 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Facsimile(501)374-4187 Robert Pressman Mass. Bar No. 405900 Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02421-5817 Telephone (781) 862-1955 not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 13 . 11 every conceivable context different from the specific facts involving Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attomey4. Those are the only facts before the attorneys in this case per the plain language of the Court's March 18, 2004 Order. Mar. 18, 2004 Order 11 3-5. Given that, Joshua is inclined to follow the pattern of federal appellate courts and decline to answer anything more than the specific question put before it. Joshua's misgivings notwithstanding, in order to comply as fully as possible with the Cami's directives of March 17 and 18, 2004, Joshua can say that as a general matter, if a current ODM employee sought representation from Joshua's counsel, it would probably be prudent to decline that representation so as not to raise the specter of conflict with the intervenors. Model R. of Profl Conduct 1.7(b). On the other hand, if a former employee of the ODM sought representation for a matter unrelated to that person's employment with the ODM and unconnected from that facts and paiiies in this case, that representation probably could be undertaken. CONCLUSION An abbreviated attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney began and ended on or about October 14, 2002 only because Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 1 3. Joshua's attorney declined the representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential 4 For example, Messrs. Jones and Mr. Heller work for large, full-service law firms with numerous partners, associates, and support staff. Presumably, any of their partners or associates could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking advice on anything from domestic relations, tax, probate, or any other legal issue. Theoretically, that employee could approach a newly hired associate in a social setting, ask the associate for an opinion about something completely unrelated to the ODM or this case, and establish an attorney-client relationship with not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for l'virs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoinfi JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 261 1 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to : Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 J,9tuYW. Walker  Ko-bert Pressman 12 P.3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregointf JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 26 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 John W. Walker Robert Pressman 12 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1 723 BROADWAY LITILE R OCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 March 26, 2004 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE /JF DESEGREGATiOU MO~{lf Cfi/NG OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON RO . .\\D LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 E~WL: mchenryd@swbell.net RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, et al. In The United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Case Number 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear Mr. Heller: Enclosed please find a file marked copy of JOSHlJA TNTERVENORS' RESPONSE To TI-lE COURT'S MARCI-I 17, 2004 ORDER. Please telephone me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter. TC Enclosures (1 ) Cc Robert Pressman Mark Burnett Stephen W. Jones M. Samuel Jones, III Dennis R. Hansen Ann Marshall 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'S RESPONSE TO ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOrJ f:10 NITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, by counsel, will address the five numbered paragraphs in the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, seriatim. 1. No. However, in approximately 1987, Gene Jones was the assistant superintendent for instruction in the PCSSD and the District's representative on the Magnet Review Committee which was then in its nascent stage. Mr. Gene Jones recalls that undersigned counsel helped prepare him for testimony on one occasion concerning Magnet Review Committee issues during that time period. 2. While undersigned counsel does not believe that the foregoing described episode arose to an attorney-client relationship, even as broadly construed, the episode occurred some time during 1987. Of course, this event predated the formation of the ODM by several years and predates Mr. Gene Jones' employment with the ODM by many years . 3. No. 487697-v1 4. Not applicable. 5. The ODM is an \"arm of the court\" and plays a special role in this institutional reform litigation. Accordingly, and especially if school counsel made a conscious decision to represent an employee of the ODM, then other parties could make a cogent argument that the school counsel is disqualified from further representation in the school case because he or she has effectively chosen to represent an employee of an entity directly connected to and originally created by this Court. (See generally Model Rule 1.7). From time to time in the past, one or more of the parties have sought to utilize either the reports of the ODM or testimony from ODM employees to make a point or further their position in these proceedings. Particularly under these unique circumstances, such representation as described in the Court's order should be avoided. Because the monitoring or recommendations made by the ODM can in fact influence the practices of a school district, or could have an affect upon the practices, presentations or positions of any party to this case, then discretion would seem to behoove that such representation be eschewed. Stated another way, if an employee of the ODM was represented by counsel to one of the parties in this case, and particularly if that employee was in a position to influence monitoring outcomes or recommendations to be made by the ODM, and if that counsel had an interest in either the monitoring outcomes or recommendations, then the representation of that ODM employee could present the appearance of impropriety. Particularly since the ODM occupies a high profile position, and presuming that the ODM desires to foster and maintain the trust of the public, any doubt about the representation should be resolved against accepting it. 487697-v1 2 This reasoning seems consistent with certain principles the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed in First American Carriers, Inc. vs. Kroger Company, 302 Ark. 86, 787 S.W.2d 1669 (1990) . In that case, the Court reminded the legal profession that avoiding the \"appearance of impropriety\" was still part of the rules governing attorneys as established by prior decisions of the Supreme Court even though the previous ABA Code of Professional Responsibility had, by then, been replaced by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. As the Court explained: While Canon 9 is not expressly adopted by the Model Rules, the principle applies because its meaning pervades the Rules and embodies their spirit. It is included in what the preamble to the Rules refers to as \"moral and ethical considerations\" that should guide lawyers who have \"special responsibility for the quality of justice\". Another difficulty could arise as respects the budget of the ODM. The Court routinely refers the proposed annual budget to counsel for all of the parties for comment. If one of the lawyers in this case was representing one of the employees of the ODM, then there would be at least a tension between that representation and certain budget issues, including the proposed compensation for that employee or, particularly as this case \"winds down\", issues such as a reduction in force for the ODM or a curtailment of duties and responsibilities. While such developments might be to the financial interest of one or more of the parties to this case, those issues would likely conflict with the employees' own self interest. Another potential issue presents itself as respects the attorney-client privilege. (Please see the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6: 103 @ page 137). It is conceivable that an attorney representing an employee of the ODM could acquire information useful to his \"school 487697-v1 3 client\" in this case. However, even if that information might have otherwise been discoverable through routine means, the fact that the attorney acquired it from his or her ODM client would likely (if not certainly) cause the privilege to attach thereby likely precluding the attorney from using the information that would otherwise be useful to his school client. The problem presented in this example is palpable. Id.@ 1.6:115@ 168.16 Another potential example suggests itself in these circumstances. For instance, the ODM client might confide to the attorney something like \"School District Xis fudging on the numbers it is reporting to the ODM, but don't tell anybody.\" While the attorney might very well have ultimately figured out such a circumstance, and used it to his or her advantage in this case, the fact that he or she initially received the information in an obviously privileged communication is at best problematic. Since the information confided likely does not rise to - the level of a \"crime\" or \"fraud\" as discussed in the Code, (assuming the fudging is a product of sloppiness rather than intent) then more likely than not the attorney cannot use the information to the advantage of his school case client presumably to that client's detriment. See, for instance, the Law of Lawyering,  1.6: 105@ 148.2. As discussed generally in the Law of Lawyering, Id. @ 1. 6: 115 @ 168 .17, the examples given above could arise even in the context of a \"one shot\" consultation to which the privilege would attach, however briefly. Accordingly, it would appear to be clearly prudent to even avoid the potential circumstance of establishing an attorney-client relationship, however fleeting, by simply declining to discuss with any ODM employee any issue that could lead to the formation of the relationship. 487697-v1 4 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 26, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 487697-v1 5 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 487697-v1 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 6 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ALSTON JENNJNGS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW (1917 -2004 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. MARTIN G. GILBERT ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER GREGORY S. MUZINGO .. Writer ' s Direct Dial No . S0l -212 - 1273 mjones@wlj .com March 26, 2004 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVI S CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D, WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKES . RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS  LicaJ.Wtnpncticeb!JiJrrtMUnitiedSutes Patent UJd Tndi:rwrk Offic.e 0 J..icauf tn pnctk:e in M\",cbipn only MAR 2 ~l 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREt:rnTIOM MONITOR!N0 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD response to the Court's order of March 17, 2004. Because of the Court's impending deadline, copies of being faxed to all counsel in this case as well. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 488399-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, 6 Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Robert Pressman (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE , MAR Z : 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed AD E's Supplemental Response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of 2 March 26, 2004 MAH Enclosure Very truly yours, Y1~-~ ~ MARK.A. HAGEr Assistant Attorney General 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. MAP 1- r 2004 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comes now Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, and for its supplement to its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, states: ADE is and was unable to respond definitively to questions 3, 4, and 5 of the Court's Order dated March 17, 2004. ADE believes it lacks sufficient specific facts regarding any particular attorney-client relationship to respond definitively to these three questions. It appears from the Court's questions that the principal concern is that, if there was an attorney-client relationship between an attorney in the case and an employee of ODM, could confidential information have been divulged by that employee to that attorney. If during the attorney-client relationship the ODM employee divulged information to the attorney concerning ODM's or the Court's opinion or contemplated course of action on a subject relevant to this desegregation litigation, then ADE would certainly contend this was improper or, at the very least, created an appearance of impropriety. However, if the attorney-client relationship had nothing to do with this desegregation litigation and if no confidential information was disclosed, then ADE might conclude the relationship was proper. It appears to ADE that there could be circumstances where an attorney-client relationship between an employee of ODM, which is an arm of the Court, and a lawyer or a member of lawyer's firm representing a party in this case could be appropriate. For example, if an ODM employee requested services for an adoption, a will, or a criminal matter from one of these lawyers or their firm, ADE would not think this attorney-client relationship improper. ADE can also imagine, however, various situations that would run the gamut between these two extremes that might create an appearance of impropriety that the Court would want the ODM and its employees to avoid. In conclusion, separate defendant would want to know many more facts before it could opine on whether any particular relationship between an employee of ODM and an attorney in this case was improper or not. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General R, #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge ral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 2 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 ;;)b day of March 2004, addressed to : Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 MarkA. ~eier 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Comes the law firm of Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. , counsel for the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and in response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 states as follows: 1. The law fi rm of Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has co nducted a conflicts search regarding its representation of those individuals listed by Ms. Ann Marshall as having worked for the Office of Desegreation Monitoring in the email of March 19, 2004 from Ms. Ann Marshall , copy attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has not represented any of the individuals listed in Exhibit 1. 3. Mr. Gene Jones was previously the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for the NLRSD during the pendency of this litigation and while Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones , P.A. was representing the NLRSD. However, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has never represented Mr. Jones individually. 4. In addition , all attorneys at Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. have been asked if they have any memory of any conversation with one of the listed individuals regarding any legal matter regardless of how casual the discussion. No attorney has any present memory of any such discussion occurring . By: 2 Respectfully Submitted , pN \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. --- NW. JONES, #7 -083 425 West Capitol Avenu Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 \"Ann Marshall\" \u0026lt;asbrown@aristotle.ne t\u0026gt; 03/19/2004 11 : 19 AM To: \u0026lt;sjones@jlj .com\u0026gt; cc: Subject: FW: judge wilson's order Hello , Steve. Below are the e-mail exchanges I ' ve had with Chris and Sam re Judge Wilson ' s most recen o rders . I don ' t want to leave you out . At the very bottom is the list of those individuals who have worked for ODM, to the best of our knowledge. Als o , as I pointed out , all of us have at one time worked for ADE, LRSD, NLRSD , or PCSSD . Please let me know if you need any further information, and I ' l l be glad to do what I can. Ann -----Original Message----- From: Ann Marshall [m3ilt o :asbrown@aristotle . net} Sent : Friday , March 19, 20 0 4 10:47 AM To: Chris Heller Cc: mjones@wlj . com Subject : RE : judge wilson ' s order Sam , below is the lis t I sent Chris yesterday. For both of yo u , Chris and Sam , the complete name o f t he person whose last name I couldn ' t recall is Theresa Bradley, who wo rked as a receptionist in the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor . The name in the list below that reads \"Jackie Bates \" is actually \"Ja c kie Banks , \" who was also a receptionist and is deceased . In reply to your que s tion this morning , Sam, about Gene Jon es ' previous position: he was re ti red when I hired him in 1995. He had mos t recently been assis ta n t supe rin t endent for instruction in the NLRSD. Befor e that , he was dire c t o r o f secondary education and assistant superintende n t for instruction in PCSSD. He was also an associate director for instru c t ion at ADE and once director of t he Metropolitan Education Servi ces Center As a matter of fa c , every employee of t his o ffice , including me, at one time worked for ei t her ADE , PCSSD, LRSD, or NLRSD . Hope this info helps . I f you need more, just holler . Ann -----Original Me s sage -- - -- From: Chris Hel l e r [mailt~ : HELLER@fec .net] Sent : Thursday, March Jo , L004 6 :42 PM To: Alan Bryan; Ale;,:andra l r rah ; Amanda Ros e ; Angelia Chamberlin; Donald Ba con; J.C . Bake r; Darin 8a1.ron ; Tom Baxt e r; Bryan Duke; Robert Beac h ; Joe Bell; Paul Benha m; Bra ndon Ha rrison ; Lee Brown ; Bruce Tidwell ; Larry Bur~s ; Jim Buttry; Carol1n Wall a ce; Jim Clark; Allison Cornwell; Kevin Cra s s ; Coleman Wes:brou~ ; Qsrar Davis; Betty Demory; Walter Ebel; John Echol s ; Byron Ei sema n; r~: -~ Sardne r; Greg Mc Kee; Dave Graf; Will Gri f f in ; Jame s Ha rr is ; C~r:s H~l ler; Jason Hendren ; Dan Herrington; Fra n Hic ~man ; J o seph Hurst ; ~i-- ~ Hut chison; Jonann Con iglio ; Jamie J ones ; Joseph McKay; Jeff Moo r e ; Joey Nichols ; John Peiserich ; jpmsec ; James Smith ; Jay Taylor ; Kimber l y Dickerson ; Khayyam Eddings ; Karen Halbert; Kristen Rowlands; ScotL ~a~~~ste r ; H. T . Larzelere ; Chris Lawson ; Tom Leg ge tt ; Harry Li ght ; ' .. y:, ~\"' .\"o:!nson; Lindsey Mit c ham; Lois Dundee; Diane Mackey ; Phil Ma l c om; Mar - ~~ s~it h; Michelle At or; Marvin Childers; EXHIBIT ii Martin Kasten ; Mike Moore; Michael Moyers; Elizabeth Murray; Wyck Nisbet; Jane Oberste; Ellen Owens ; William PATTON ; Cliff Plunkett ; Ryan Bowman; Robert Smith; Shep RUSSELL ; James Saxton; Steven Brooks; Sarah Cotton; Robert Shafer ; James Simpson; Sam Macheak ; Laura Smith ; Carla Spainhour ; William Sutton; Tim Ezell; Tonia Jones; Scott Tucker ; Fred URSERY; William Waddell ; Guy Wade ; Dewey Watson ; David Wilson ; Wayne Young Cc: fendleyl@alltel . net ; asbrown@aristotle . net Subject : judge wilson ' s order lawyers - judge wilson has required that all lawyers in the pulaski county school desegregation case answer , among others , the fo l lowing question : \"do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the office of desegregation monitoring ( ' employee ' is to be construed broadly regardless of job description ' )? \" the current and forrmer odm employees i ' ve identified so far are : ann marshall (formerly ann brown) , gene jones, horace smith , polly ramer , margie powell , linda ~ryant, connie hickman, bob morgan , bill mooney , skip marshall , melissa gulden , arma hart , jackie bates and prentice dupins . in o r der to properly respond to j. wilson ' s order, i need to know about any communication with any of these people regarding any legal matter , whether or not you believe it amounted to \"representation \" . thanks . ch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, doe hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid , this 26th day of March, 2004, addressed to the following : Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 -2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol , Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, L YoN\u0026amp; JoNEs,P.A. HiECEi~VfED Offices I n: Conway, Arkansas Nashville, Tennessee Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier (501) 375-1 027 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: MAR 2 f: 2004 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Response to the March 17, 2004 Court Order which is being filed with the Court today. SWJ:tl Enclosure Sincerely, ~9~ MAR 3 0 2004 JAMES W. l\\.!ic:COf~L :.\\CK, CLERK By- -------,=--- DEP CLER!( THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 30, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Gene Jones Associate Monitor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRlCT OF ARKAl'fSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRlCT NO. 1, et aL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et aL KATHERINE K.i~GHT, et aL 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED MAR 01 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDAl~S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 17, 2004 I entered an order directing the lawyers to provide information and give me opinions with respect to representation, or potential representation, of members of the ODM by lawyers representing a party in this lawsuit. It appears that each party agrees that it would be improper, in almost all instances, for a party to represent a member of the ODM Accordingly, the parties and their lawyers are directed to notify the Court immediately if a lawyer for a party undertakes to represent a member of the ODM briefly or for the long haul. \"Representation\" is to be construed broadly as is set forth in the order ofMarch 17, 2004. Incidentally, judges are prohibited from rendering \"advisory\" opinions; on th~ other hand lawyers probably spend ninety percent of their time rendering advisory opinions to their clients and courts.  r_lr IT IS SO ORDERED this ti day of March, 2004. United States District Judge 852 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 March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of 'Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-422 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 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, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna A Lawson s'Ponvi ii e MaryJane Rebick Lillie Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland 4.rkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 March 31, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED APR - 1 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 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 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 March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, , - ( ~ ( ' I M4\u0026lt; Jt,;j-t,_ cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 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, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, 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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","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":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"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","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"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":["82 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\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 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 RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the 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 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 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 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. 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 WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 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 _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM 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 - - - - - - - ------------------~    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_1761","title":"Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District.","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":["2004-01/2004-02"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","School districts","Little Rock School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","School integration","Students","Parents","Teachers","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District."],"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/1761"],"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":["60 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\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, joint stipulation; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file reply and response to cross-appeal; District Court, motion; District Court, order; a situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District.    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOINT STIPULATION RECEIVED JAN G 200~ OFFIC~ OF DESEGREGA110N MON\\10R\\NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On December 23, 2003, the Pulaski County Special School District No. I (PCSSD) filed a motion seeking court approval for \"two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills High School.\" The Joshua Intervenors, having been sufficiently informed regarding capacity figures, school assignments, transfer practices, and the racial balance at Sylvan Hills High School which now exceeds 40% African American students, and the PCSSD seek prompt approval of the motion because of exigent necessity for the requested additional school facilities. These two parties hereby stipulate that the PCSSD request is meritorious and that it will not otherwise undermine existing desegregation and education obligations of the PCSSD. WHEREFORE, these parties respectfully request that the Court approve the PCS SD motion. M:,,Samuel Jones, III,,AR Bar No. 76060 Respectfully s~_pmitted,, / . C. ---,X'f-_/ ..  , \u0026lt;- \u0026lt;.:..-., I~ ~: / .:..' X,::. u ?'\\....A..,,..._. v I .. L---' v l-'-- '-  r( _,t__ _ Jo}:in W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / l_ .. / WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 (501) 376-9442 (Fax) Attorney for the Pulaski County Special Special School District JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Attorney for Joshua lntervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January 7, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall QOM 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 249234-v1 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 M. Samu~I Jones Ill ( / -  -,_____ _/ 2 r~~ THE L~lITED STATES D1STPJ:CT C01JRT T\"' , _.._,..._\",T ~.--_..,....,..,-.._ \"..-, J _,.r' .\": -...'I'(\" t \u0026lt;\"' ,.t\\..::\u0026gt; .l L.l'\\.l 'I v.1..:, .l ~'--.l vr .a~\"\"r\\..::, i..iTTi.E ROCK DiV1SiQ7; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LO!H'NE JOSHUA, ET AL. Ki~\"'TP...EPJNE Kl\\qIGHT, ET .A .. L. ORDER Fu en ILL-U' 'I c:\" M I CTOl(\"\"T r.()URT eASTEi:tN 01s'rR1c, ARKANSAS JAN - 9 200~ 6y ---------;:;;c\"Ecprc~LE\"'RR,\u0026lt; PLAiNT.iFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Puiaski County Special Schooi District's Motion for Two Temporary Portable Building at Sylvan Hills School (Doc. No. 3826). No parties have Objected to the t'CSSD's motion, and their time for doing so has now expired. ln its motion, PCSSIJ requests authorization to lease two portable bmldings for the second semester and for the 2004-2005 school year at Sylvan .Hills High School. due to the unexpected increase m enrollment ct,:u-ing the current school year. PCSSD and the Joshua lntervenors have stipulated (Doc. !'To . 3828) that the request is meritorious a.~d ,.vill not underrr1ine eristing A t\"-,...,.. _ _ ,., ...__._: ,,.. _ ,.._,..J ...,,.:: ,,,..,.. .., ; __ .,.. t..1 ; __ ._ :...., _ .... ,,.. .\u0026amp;'-1., - D/'\"\"-C\"C,~ '-\"'--.:,\"-'!'S\"\"\"!S\"'UUJ.J. a.u.u. .... uu.\\..a\\.J.UJ.L UUHl!!::,aUU.iL,=:, U.L UJ.C ),. \\...,..JLH . ./. Because no parties have objected to the motion and based on the stipulation between PCSSD and the Joshua intervenors. the PCSSD's Motion for Two Temporary Portabie Building at Sylvan Hills School is GRANTED. .,......_ IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2004. , / / -~J~ . It I fl /4 r ~..--- _ ---f If {/f.,,1 / VIA.~ /IV IJ ~ UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON. JR. TO: DATE: JTNTTED ~T ATF.~ fl!~'T'R lf'\"f ( ,(ll l R'T' EASTJ!,RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris .Heller Sam Iones ~teve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier l1 nn tv1'o.-Qho 11 liK ., ..... t,. D-. -. - o +4-.o '- \"' \"''\"\"'-'-A),, J-''\"4.1. AA\"-''-'-\\,,, I__, () I L  ~ -../ Telephone: 501-604-5140 F:ix Nnrnher: S01-604 Sl 49 376-2147 3 76-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 6R2-2591 371-0!00 .\".l, .',~.., 10Af\\ J..  .T V There are 0ages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. -4 /} ,4 ~ . ~ , #' ,~L- -~7~,V-, 'II .~,,- 1 // Ottice of Judge Wm. R. Wi1s9)( Jr. U.S. District Court / 600 West Capitol. RoOI#23 Little Rock, Arkam a\" 72?0) ,~1att ~1orgaJl, LRSD La1vv Clerk: t;\" A'I r l\"\\ A :; \u0026lt;t A 1 JV J VV\"?~ J \"? .( I  I I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I I REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor SECOND UPDATE January 14, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor L... L... u u.,. J.  J. ,. WILL BOND cone \u0026amp; ~namcer11n BOND \u0026amp;. CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKS0t14\"Yl~LE, AAiW'iJSAS 72U76 501 J 882 - 9414 p.2 NEIL CHAMBERLIN January 22, 2004 TELEPHONE: (501) 982.9081 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans : Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in the abovereferenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger With Warmest Regards, Will Bond l.sc.hool district detach.ment.e1ghth circuic.appeal\\clerk.jan.22. 04 uu 11u ac wr1c:1mue r - 1 1 n l!:\u0026gt;Ul I 982 - 9414 m..TITED STATES COURT OF ~-.?PEALS ~OR TE:E XIGHTK CIR~ul~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT:tFF V. No. 03-3088 PULASKI COO?,.'TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRXCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERUm KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. APPELLBES INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ APPELLANTS MOTION POR BXTlfflSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY AND RESPONSB TO CROSS-APPEAL Come the Appellants , the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for their Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Their Reply Brief and Response to Cross-Appeal, state: 1. On or about December 23, 2003, Appellees filed a Response and Cross-Appeal to Appellants Brie. Appellant's Reply and Response are due January 22, 2004. 2. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' Reply and Response to Cross-Appeal is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel, Will Bond, is a State Representative elected to represent the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The Arkansas General Assembly is currently in special session. The special session began on December 8, 2003 and is still ongoing. It is the longest special session in history. Appellants' counsel has p.3 ouria.,. 1.,namcer11n l~Ul J ::H:lc - ::1414 been the lead sponsor on legiBlation during the session and nas been unable to complete the Reply and Response Brief. 3 . Although the Reply and Response will be very short, Mr. Bond requests an additional eight (8) days in which to file his brief. This would make the brief due on January 30, 2004 . Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 902-9081 Telefax (501) 982-94i4 By: Will Bond ~.R Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE r. Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing plea.ding by tJnit:ed States Mail I add.reseed to such attorney or party with suffici~l}.t prepaid postage to ensure rirst-class delivery this ,.Q.;2.fiiciay of January, 2004: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock. AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 Via Fax@ 376-9442 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 2 ...,c:311 L..L.. L..UV\"'T J,.V  J.\"'T cone \u0026amp; Lnamoer11n John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone {501)374-3758 (501) 982-9414 Via Fa..'X @ 374-4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring , n.,,.;,.....,.., 1\\T::iti ...... ,..,::,l Pl;1za 124 w. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Reck, ]).R 72201 Telephone 340-8285 Ti~ Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201- 2610 Telephone 692-2586 By: Via Fax@ 375- 1027 Via Fax@ 3 7 1 -0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340- 8282 Via Fax \u0026amp; 682 - 2591 Will Bond, AR Bar 95145 l.  chool di  trict det  chmnt . eigh~b circuit.appeal . .mo tion Lor exceru;ion.jan.22.04 3 p.S ...,-  ._._ ._.....,....., I .L U .L \"'T oursu\"' L.namoer11n lb: Ann Marshall From: Win Bond Fax: 371-0100 Pag- Including Coversheet 5 Dair. Jaooary 22. 2004 Re: Littte Roel\u0026lt; School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. The informatton contained In this tu nnsrnttal Is confldentlal attomey-dlent privileged information and Is iranded solely tor the uee of the lndlvldual or entity named as recipient. If this inauase its received by -one other than the :rn..r~ TiClpief'K, you are prohiblied from I ny dillumlnatioll, dielribution or copying d this communication eXC9PI to the add,.._ If this communication ha9 been nte8Mld by you In error, or If you arc not s1on1 al It. intend.d dilltrtbutlon, please notify lhe a~ced office at 1-aBa-2A5-1ffl. p. 1 . ,',--.- RECE\\\\JED FE.B :- l\\ 2004   :- \". .;  ' OFflCEOF .. ;,:  . OiSEGREGAl\\ON MOtUlOR\\MG : . ~::'\u0026gt;\u0026gt; -_. ,. .. . . .~ .... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT The court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities. Although the court's order is on appeal, counsel has sought to abide by the letter and spirit of the court's order. Counsel, however, brings to the court's attention an egregious situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District, who elected to attend a PCS SD school Clinton Elementary, with a request that the court assign the matter for inquiry and report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ( see Enclosure) Respectfully submitted, Jqhn W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway _ Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187(fax) J 0119,w . walker  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this 3rd day of February 2004 by placing copy in the United States mail postage prepaid. '!Ti Lj son., , Lee. ......I.., _ _ -J 01 _..o , o r_ \" TH+r i _u . :i o.,.. . s+ -u. olQ__.~,... ct ,.. ,c t_,~ rr l ____ \\_T\\ .. , 1' Y'iu q v-u...,.t I:. le..n\"- . Lee.. 1 .$ Lo U e- Q .tt_/ ~ ccni ... J ~ - \\.). t , 1..ul I I j  . J he, 1 s i n + h.s;., I' 1 ~ r a de_ . L1 l'L Fe h -- 1.J c. ,~_l:j J.., 1 .;:z L'G ~ Lee.s ie o c. he. r 5 en+ I-LUY\\. J1ome --l'=rum St \\rioo C  LL, , 'f h '-I\", c, S h:::,e s l)n. h..t. s -f-e e i: . +I er h c, n1 e I s {Y'\\ rs En\", s. On Feb ;J., 1 i. Luo s ~Lu n, n5 c-\"':'d C1 I S O + /,e., -it. rr, { l t. \"IC, 'tLVt..L LU Q S 30 . ft C) o-\\ u -FT l4 }, , s b u s eel -10~ 1o... mo, r o c_ CV.d Luc, \\ k_a cl .t,. ~ unu d, G ih 'fron r u c'.- +o ,;!(,;r\"'- V cu, e, u r -c n Lu NY\\ I S o w =\u0026lt;j S ore h e.- 10 cv::i f\\ c-d j-Qt e d ,.,J.!f J,.,v) ~ ,., 1,J ..__. li., R..Luu1,..__,c.,; h,V) ,nus e k 10t_n R.-LlfUo_; ~q L , , .,, \" \u0026lt;' f-,, ,. ,., ., A _.,  -.. .J1 1 ~, ~ 1 r U v\\.....,/u:_, ,.J , ) 1 c._ t'\\....L, '9 1 .. CJ,..'i..,l.J'--q Cu,~ h..t I:_ u1.tl dJ\"-T '1'Yll, v e.. h , s +e ct , rv e u1-,JJ cr1 P:icvv L~fJ Io, I K, J__ c_ u i L, cl ;' Fm S Cu1d ~'-) c Qnu__ +c, ~ r-ic 17v__, GLn d i: I\\.., ct_,l_.,, d cf- e. e. -i-o, d ~ . 171 e rns ice, s +r ':\\ \"'j -lo , b r , 'j :i)rn e., htQ:.t bacK I ruo 1--v, s 6~. J_ c,, i so ccruuctrd ~ L. Po V ~ -e... ,j e() t ~ -tu:, K. o  efo rt Cl.rd cl-10/1.1: d Truv:i :-r-Jn \\ s Lui -+k__ E ndan3-e (r, +1-u___ Lue\\ fo.r -e.,, o-f Cl ~Or(.  L lt\u0026lt;) o tor1...:i uc 't-e. d Sn-e I loo OU u. -u;---,. e,_, p t b' u;-,t- ~ - -, d cn~t- 1 ru__y 1yj CLA'l... t: to --t-a k...t__ ~--L ~ e..ro rt - j h ; S 1 S th_ -e_ kJo r- s t . ')~ of' . nuj L 1 fe., buc,.,u~ i T , S e e m._,s ,L : k.t., no o ~ l\u0026lt;.)a.rul: s +o do Q ~-lkc.,~ cu00Lct -th.vi . Cu-u.fuzl -ij ou er-eq S G .De--e c:...-t m-c -+o Som e 00.Ju who C.etf -r .s Q o Lct Lc) h.cL;t ~ o__,p_p-e1u1 cl +o n~ '5 i. x ...t.~UV\\__; o 1 cl o t\\. Fe 6 {)., _ :1 co ~ . RECEIVED FEB 1 o 2004 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 FEB -6 1004 CORMACK, CLERK JAMES W  Mc oEP cLERK .B'f PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In their motion filed February 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 3832), Joshua Intervenors assert that \" [t]he court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities.\" I have no idea what order Joshua Intervenors are referring to. I do not believe that I have entered an order that would, in anyway, limit Joshua Intervenors' counsel's duty to represent his clients, or to take appropriate steps to address the \"egregious situation\" alleged in the February 3 motion. To the contrary, I would expect counsel to \"do the necessary\" with respect to clients. Accordingly, Joshua Intervenors' Motion (Doc. No. 3832) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ay ofFebruary, 2004. WM. R . WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866    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_1746","title":"Includes corrected order, notice of filings, brief of appellant and appendix, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief, ADE project management tool, report by Office of Desegregation Management, and PCSSD motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School.","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":["2003-11/2003-12"],"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","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","School enrollment","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Includes corrected order, notice of filings, brief of appellant and appendix, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief, ADE project management tool, report by Office of Desegregation Management, and PCSSD motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School."],"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/1746"],"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":["176 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\u003eDistrict Court, corrected order; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of appellant and appendix; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2003-04 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, joint brief of appellee/cross-appellant and separate appendix; 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.    FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~rtNg',if~1ifil~~SAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION NOV  3 2003 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. CORRECTED ORDER JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_, ____ -=--~== PLAfN'fml( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools ' final budget for rhe 2002-2003 school year and proposed - budget for the 2003-2004 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2003 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond withi~ five days; otherwise, the MR.C's final budget for the 2002-2003 school year and proposed 2003-2004 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day ofNovember, 2003. -w1,.... oocu1v1c:.1\" i r::.,'I' c:.,--.c ... ~ ,,;~ I n,;, p  ~'C - E~T 1  -.; COiv1 ... :,-.,~ '- 00CKET SH c:. 1 ' . -  - .NIT~ULE 58 AND/0~- 0NJJ--?j., BY UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 November 5, 2003 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F . Eagleton U.S. Courthouse lll S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING TELEPHONE: (501 ) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8t h Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. l, et al. , Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Katherine Knight, et al., Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker, Case No. 03-3088 - Brief and Appendix Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed is an original and eleven copies of Appellants' Brief and an original and three copies of Appellants' Appendix for filing in the above-referenced case. The Addendum on Appellants' Brief is in excess of 15 pages. This is a unique case in which the Judge essentially made his ruling from the bench. I have included the transcript of the Judge's ruling in the Addendum as instructed by your office. After the Brief and Appendix is filed, please forward filemarked copies back to me . I have included a large envelope with postage for your convenience. If you have any questions or concerns , please do not hesitate to contact me. By copy of this letter I have forwarded counsel for all parties involved in the litigation at the lower court copies of the Brief and Appendix. I have also forwarded a copy to the local district judge. Regards, TWB:tt Michael E. Gans November 5, 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Tim Gauger Judge William Wilson I i le I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I le I I RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 03-3088 GREG BOLLEN, et al. Appellants v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLANT Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin  602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 AR Bar #95145 Attorney for Appellants NOV 1 O 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I - I I I -I I 1e I I I I I I -  II RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 03-3088 GREG BOLLEN, et al. Appellants V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, J.r., District Judge APPENDIX Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin  602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 AR Bar #95145 Attorney for Appellants u.fl~~l?RT EASTEAN CIS'fA!Oi ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO1URT NOV 1 0 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LfITLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W McCOAMACK, CL.ERK By: -------,=E=P.\"\"\"C..,...,LE\"\"R-K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV0086.6 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 Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's fee petiti,c\u0026gt;n (Doc. No. 3804). The Arkansas Department of Education has responded (Doc. No. 3814) ai1d the PCS SD has replied (Doc. No. 3816). In its fee petition PCS SD seeks a total fee award of $78,32650, an amount which includes attorney time expended both in this action and a related state court action. Additionally, the attorney time is billed at counsel's standard hourly rate, rather than the lower hourly rate counsel charges its client, the PCSSD; therefore ~e PCSSD's fee petition will be reduced for the following reasons: 1) C.ounsel for PCS SD seeks compensation from the ADE at $215 per hour, his standard hourly rate. However, counsel nonnally bills PCSSD at an hourly rate of $150. Therefore, $150 an hour is the rate which will be used to detennine compensation owed by the ADE in the current action. 2) Total compensation will include only time spent on the federal issues. Time spent on matters related to the state court proceeding is not closely enough related to this award of attorney's fee. 3) Because work performed by counsel in March 2001 and AJpril 2002, were not necessary to present the PCSSD's Motion to Enforce, and was work that would have nonnally been perfoIIDed for PCSSD, counsel is not entitled to compensation from the ADE for those hours. 4) PCS SD requests payment for time spent addressing appellate issues following the August 18, 2003 hearing. This request is premature and will not be i;(lcluded in the total compensation. 5) A total of five hours will be allowed for preparation of PCSSD's fee petition . . With the limitations established above, the award here breaks down as follows: 'lli,te Perfonned May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August2003 September 2003 Total Total Amoynt 5,715 .00 10,667.50 18,835.50 9,152.50 750.00 $44,820.50 Upon review of both PCSSD's fee petition and the ADE's response, and based on my findings of fact and conclusions of law, counsel for the PCSSD is entitled to compensation from the ADE in the amount of $44,820.50 . .IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2003 u)'! ,~./l.llhA1, f'r UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette //- /O,D3 Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are .3 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~ U.S. District Court 600 Wes1 Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,;k, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGIITH cmcUIT GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER V. CASE NO. 03-3088 CASE NO. 03-3404 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE'S BRIEF RECEIVED DEC -1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANTS APPELLEE Appellant's opening brief was originally due on October 15, 2003 . Appellants obtained an enlargement of time until and including November 6, 2003, to file their opening brief. The PCS SD requests an equivalent period of time until and including December 23, 2003, within which to file its opening Appellee's brief. The PCSSD brief is currently due on or about December 6, 2003. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an enlargement of time until and including December 23, 2003, within which to file its appellee 's brief. 463029-v1 Respectfully submitted WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following : Mr. Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 442823-v1 2 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson B- ville MaryJane Rebick Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capito/Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 December 2, 2003 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us ~1ECEIVED DEC - :1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. s~; o.JA ~smt? General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF 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 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, # Attorney, 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 2, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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. LORENEJOSHUA, ETAL INTERVENOR$ KA THERINE 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 November 30, 2003 Based on the information available at October 31, 2003, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, 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  II ~ ~ --- -- ' - ' ' I I I r I 01- ..:;;__, 1 G  \"'3 L ,._ ...; 2003-04 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANdf:~~cc, ,, . ., . ~:-~ cu~::;, ,. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST~-~-~ .r. Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor December 16, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager L.~ ,-' C.:lL. ~ RECEIVED RECEIVED OEC 2 6 2003 DEC 2 6 2003 OESEGREGr{iW~ ~~1mORIHG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 MOTION FOR TWO TEMPORARY PORTABLE BUILDINGS AT SYLVAN HILLS SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On December 16, 2003, the ODM issued its annual report concerning enrollment and racial balance in the PCSSD. At pages 5 and 16 of the report, the ODM concludes that Sylvan Hills High School is currently operating at 103% capacity. It should be noted that this capacity reflects the District's recalculation of building capacities for the 2003-2004 school year. (ODM Report, p. 5). 2. The ODM report simply confirms a problem with which the PCSSD has struggled with thus far during the first semester. It is short at least two classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. 3. The purpose of this motion is to seek an order of this Court approving the acquisition and use of two portable buildings for the second semester at Sylvan Hills High School. As a practical matter, the PCSSD must seek approval to utilize those _ ___ ,p. ortable buildings for the 2004-2005 schoo ear since it is highly unlikel.J-----\"-'-th...a,,,..._,,,_,_.__ _____ 468157-v1 - informed judgment can be made regarding permanent additions at the Sylvan Hills campus this year. 4. The use of these portable buildings will not have negative racial balance consequences. As the ODM report notes at page 9: \"Sylvan Hills High, which once had an enrollment less than 20% African-American, has been within the target range for the last 14 years.\" 5. The Sylvan Hills High School enrollment over time is depicted at page C-9 of the current ODM report. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court authorizing it to install and utilize two portable buildings for classroom instruction at Sylvan Hills High School beginning with the second semester and continuing through the 2004-2005 - school year, and for all proper relief. 468157-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __ ....::._---l1----......,..-t--::-;__ ______ _ 2 0) nty Special ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 23, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 468157-v1 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 3 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903-197'7 ) ROBERT S . LINDSEY ( 191 3- 1991 ) ISAAC A . SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S . RATHER , JR. ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD . JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JON ES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY \\VRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Wri ter 's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com . December 23, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. CO X. JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS Lk~ w pnctio:: bdff I Uaitoi Suter PMl1:DI ~nd Tndt:twrk Ollie,: RECEIVED VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DEC 2 R 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mr. Michael Gans, Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 S. 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 RE: 03-3088/03-3404 Greg Bollen, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District Dear Michael: I have enclosed the original and 11 copies of the Joint Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant and Joshua Intervenors together with the original and four copies of Separate.Appendix in this matter. Please file the brief and appendix and return file-stamped copies to me in the enclosed envelope. I have also enclosed a diskette containing the brief in Acrobat format. By copy of this letter, I am serving two copies of the brief and appendix, along with a diskette, on counsel for appellants. If you have questions or comments, please contact me. MSJ:ao Enclosures 459324-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Cf- WRIGHT , LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP December 22, 2003 - Page2 cc/w/encls.: Mr. Will Bond (2 copies with diskette) Mr. Scott Smith (1 copy w/o diskette) 459324-vl Mr. Christopher Heller (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. John W. Walker ( 1 copy w / o diskette) Mr. Mark Burnette (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. Stephen Jones ( 1 copy w / o diskette) Ms. Ann Marshall (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. Tim Gauger (1 copy w/o diskette) Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.(1 copy w/o diskette) NO. 03-3088/03-3404 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS -, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GREG BOLLEN, et al. V, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANTS APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Presiding Judge JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND JOSHUAJNTERVENORS John Walker John \\Valker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Attorney for Joshua Intervenors 4593',4 VI M. Samuel Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District -... I I I NO. 03-3088/03-3404 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GREG BOLLEN, et al. APPELLANTS I V. I I I  I I I I I I I ' I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Presiding Judge SEPARATE APPENDIX OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND JOSHUAINTERVENORS M. Samuel Jones, III Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Attorney for Joshua Intervenors 467883-vl Attorneys for Pulaski County Special SchoolDistrict fOM COURTWAY [nterim Director ;;tale Board of Education loNell Caldwell, Chair ~ittle Rock :ihclby Hillman, Vice Chair '.:arlisle Sherry Burrow Tonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren '.:alvin King 14arian11a ~andy Lawson 3en ue vfary e Rebick 'ine Bluff eanna Westmoreland lrkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liitle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 December 30, 2003 Mr.M. SaniuelJones,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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED ~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG RECEIVED Jt\\i~ 0 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I ani filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. -\u0026amp;::~~/.~ ~ Gener:;tl Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier 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 December 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~A~ sCIIlith, #922 Attorney, 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 30, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, 2201 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 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 December 31 , 2003 Based on the information available at November 30, 2003, the ADE calculated ihetqualization Funding for FY,03/04,' subject to penodic 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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1748","title":"Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, 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":["2003-11"],"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","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Pulaski County Special School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, 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/1748"],"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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to report issued by the Office of Desegregation Management on the implementation of Plan 2000; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief and reply to response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file their brief and appendix; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the court's order dated October 16, 2003; 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 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. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD hereby gives notice of its filing of its response to Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report dated May 8, 2003. 451168-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 1, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 451168-v1 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 2 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 - Enclosed is Pulaski County Special School District's reply to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Plan 2000, May 8, 2003. Department heads and others with responsibilities to the Plan have submitted responses to the status report in consultation with the Office of Equity and Pupil Services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, w~ Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services B /l-1.-....t-  16~)-.a.-o-- Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education C Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Sam Jones RESPONSE TO REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Don Henderson Superintendent of Education September 2003 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED OC1 7 1003 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAllOK MOtll10ft1KG Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us October 6, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys ' Fees which has been filed today. MAH Enclosure cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, --yri~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED OCT 7 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its counsel, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier, and for its response to PCSSD's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (\"Fee Petition\"), states as follows: I. Introduction Legal counsel for PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 for work allegedly associated with its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Allied Relief (\"Motion to Enforce\") filed with this Court on July 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, this Court conducted a three-hour hearing on issues raised in the Motion to Enforce, and later that same day it issued an order ruling that the State Board of Education's (\"SBE\") action authorizing an election on the issue of detachment of the Jacksonville Area School System from PCS SD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated below, ADE submits the fee petition of PCSSD is unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 9 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ -=:,-=,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHQA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED () e,t, 1 '1 ?nn~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Renewed and Supplemental Motion - Regarding Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3809), which was amended on September 26, 2003. 1 Also Pending is PCSSD's Motion for Temporary Portable Buildings at Robinson High School (Doc. No. 3810). No parties have responded to the PCSSD's motions, and their time for doing so has now expired.2 Sylvan Hills' Band Room In its motion regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room, PCSSD requests authorization to lease a portable building to use as the Sylvan Hills band room for the remainder of the 2003-2004 1On September 26, 2003, PCSSD filed an Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3811). In this motion, PCCSD revoked its request for permission to build a new permanent band room at Sylvan Hills, which was in the original motion (Doc. No. 3809); accordingly, I will not address the issue of a permanent band room at this time. 2See Local Rule 7.2. oEP CLERK 8 1 5 school year. PCS SD asserts that this portable building is necessary because of recurring water problems with Sylvan Hills' current band room. Robinson High School Portable Buildings According to PCCSD, for a variety ofreasons, the emollment at Robinson High School has significantly increased for the 2003-2004 school year. Because ofthis increase, Robinson -High School is presently conducting classes in the cafeteria, band room, auditorium, and gymnasium. As a temporary remedy to accommodate this increased emollment, while permanent classroom additions are considered, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable building for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. CONCLUSION The PCSSD's Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 38011) requesting permission to lease a portable building for the Sylvan Hills band room, for the remainder of the 2003-2004, school year is GRANTED. The PCSSD's motion (Doc. No. 3810) requesting permission to lease two portable buildings, for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, to accommodate increased emollment at Robinson High School is GRANTED. IT JS SO ORDERED thi/day of October, 2003. I ;;/J, 0 ~ 4tt UNIJL~J~~ THIS DOCUMENT El\\ffER!::u ui'-J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~1LE...;)8 AN~cr . ON{O ~ 0~ BY S\u0026gt; \u0026amp;- WM. R. WTLSON, JR. 2 __ EDWti:~t,i,ll'.,f1G.HL ______ -4.,.,-R-I6H-T-;-J:;-JN-1:\u0026gt;-S-EY--\u0026amp;-J-E-N-N-I-N6S- J:;-J:;-P------ ~~~BfR2U~~~ TUCKER ROBERTS. LINDSEY TROY A. PRICE (1913 - 1991 ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE J . MARK DAVIS ~g~~~~ -SG~~~~~! JR . SUITE 2300 ~~t:~\\,5,H~:NsN~~~COCK C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JERRY J. SALLINGS PATRICK l. GOSS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . (501) 371-0808 MICHAEL D. BARNES JOHN R. TISDALE STEPHEN R. LANCASTER ~~~~'..Ytfe~~~~:~ 111 FAX (501) 376-9442 ~uy~1 ~~~~CsooNN WILBER ~i~NJ.W~tilt:1o~IVEY 111 www . wlj .com iRis~~ ~~i::-::o~N N.M . NORTON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY CHARLES C. PRICE M. SEAN HATCH CHARLES T. COLEMAN l. ANDREW VINES JAMES l. GLOVER OF COUNSEL JUSTIN T, ALLEN ~~~~~i/t:~HER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS ~~g~;':.L;D~E!A1i_~~ERLING GREGORY T. JONES RONALD A. MA y PATRICK D. WILSON H. KEITH MORRISON BRUCE R. LINDSEY REGINA A. SPAULDING BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN JAMES R. VAN DOVER MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE WALTER McSPADDEN BLAKES. RUTHERFORD JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wri1cr ' s Dircc1 Di al No . 501 -212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com October 10, 2003  LioetlJlod,opncticebehretbt: UaitedSUta h1t:111ADIIT111doswtO/lia RECEIVED OCT 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD's brief and reply to response to PCSSD's motion for an Award of attorneys' fees. The reply is accompanied by my supplemental affidavit. We ask the Court to consider both items. Thank you very much. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 453145-vl Cordially yours, 2:~EY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP e_:;mre/ones, m Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Timothy Gauger (U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (U.S. Mail) RECEIVED ---- .1-------------------------lJOlv-C.\\l--.1i._::,4;__,7u,Dn..,u..3,.'---- 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. 0FFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF AND REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its reply, which tracks the format of the State's Response, states: IV. Argument A. An Hourly Rate at $215 Per Hour is Appropriate. While counsel for the PCSSD voluntarily grants the PCSSD a 30 % discount, the State is not entitled to the same discount for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State's only current financial consequence for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement is its exposure for attorney's fees. Indeed, if the State could be assured that future violations would warrant no more exposure than the discounted rate given to the PCS SD, then the State would have even less incentive to hew the line and abide by the Settlement Agreement. B. The Number of Hours Expended is Reasonable. Significantly, the State does not directly challenge the total number of hours expended. Rather, it seeks to avoid attorney fee responsibility in some instances by questioning, without citation to authority, the forums before whom the legal efforts were initially made. As we will explain, the relevant cases demonstrate the fallacy of the State's position. 452284-v1 The United States Supreme Court has squarely addressed these issues in Pennsylvania, et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, et al., 478 U.S. 546 (1986). In 1977 a citizens group, Delaware Valley, filed suit to compel Pennsylvania to implement a vehicle emission inspection program. A consent decree was entered in 1978 calling for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to seek legislation instituting the program. Id. @ 549. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature balked at implementing the provisions of the consent decree. In this protracted case, the Supreme Court divided the procedural history after the consent decree thereafter into nine phases. For purposes of this analysis, only the relevant phases will be referred to. Phase IX of the case included work done by Delaware Valley in hearings before the Environmental Protection Agency in which the State unsuccessfully sought the EPA approval of a reduced emissions program. Delaware Valley then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs for all work performed after issuance of the consent decree including the work before the administrative agency. Id. @ 553. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had affirmed the District Court's fee award including an award of fees for time spent \"commenting\" on the State's proposed emission regulations promulgated during Phase II. It likewise approved the award of fees for work done at the administrative level citing the Supreme Court case of Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, 4 71 U.S. 234 ( 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that time spent on \"optional administrative proceedings\" may be compensable under  1988 if the work was \"both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation\" to the point where the parties succeeded. Id. @ 556. 452284-v1 2 -- - - --- ------------- The Supreme Court rejected challenges from the State that the proceedings involved in Phases II and IX were not judicial in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involved traditional legal work. The Supreme Court reasoned that the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. Id. @ 558. It said: Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation ... . Id. @ 558. Finally, the Court observed that: Several courts have held that, in the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  1988, postjudgment monitoring of a consent decree is a compensable activity for which counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee. Id. @ 559. After engaging in a discussion concerning the similarities between 304 (d) (the Clean Air Act) and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act), the Court noted that: 452284-v1 Given the common purpose of both  304 (d) and  1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner. We hold, therefore, that the fact that the work done by counsel in Phases II and IX did not occur in the context of traditional judicial litigation does not preclude an award of reasonable attorney's fees under  304 (d) for the work done during these portions of the present action. Id.@ 560. 3 Many other cases support the position of the PCSSD in these regards. For instance, in Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City, 83 F .Supp.2d 1061 (D.S.D 2000), the plaintiff was fired as a city employee after he opposed a new real estate development. He appealed his termination to the Department of Labor claiming his termination was a violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Id. @ 1065. The Department of Labor agreed. Plaintiff then filed an action in Federal Court seeking damages and attorneys' fees. Rapid City claimed that as a matter of law Schlimgen was not entitled to attorneys' fees related to the earlier Department of Labor hearing. In interpreting 42 U .S.C.  1988, the District Court disagreed. As the District Court explained: The claim must be for specific portions of work product from an earlier administrative proceeding. The work done must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it has reached. 42 U.S.C.  1988 awards are not limited to work performed after the complaint is filed . ... fees may be awarded for \"research or investigation done in connection with\" a related proceeding, to the extent it \"proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights\" action. The District Court also noted that Mr. Schlimgen's DOL action was not one to enforce a specific civil rights statute. Id. @ 1071. Here, however, the efforts of the PCSSD in opposing the detachment were all directed toward preventing the State from violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement, an effort which this Court has previously ruled triggers  1988 including liability for attorneys' fees. (Please see orders cited at pages 2 and 3 of counsel's initial affidavit.) Lambert v. Fulton County, GA, 151 F.Supp.2d 1364 (N.D.Ga. 2000), is to the same effect. Lambert was an employment discrimination case in which the procedural history included an appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board before the federal court action was 452284-v1 4 I I initiated. Id. @ 1368. The defendant claimed that the time spent on the appeal to the Fulton - County Board was non-compensable. Id. The District Court disagreed. The District Court began its analysis by noting that: The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees is \"the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate\" for the attorneys' services. After calculating the lodestar, the court may within its discretion adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Id. @ 1369. In further addressing the lodestar issue, Judge Thrash explained that: As to the work performed, compensable activities include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees. Id.@ 1369-70. As to the time spent on the administrative proceeding, the Court noted that: A court should award attorneys' fees for time \"spent on administrative proceedings to enforce the civil rights claim prior to the litigation.\" The District Court also noted that: In this case, Plaintiffs' appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board was not required for them to file this suit ... . Because the proceedings before the Fulton County Personnel Board were not mandatory, time spent on them is not automatically compensable. The Court, however, concludes that time spent on these proceedings should be compensated because they were \"useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.\" Here, of course, the PCSSD would have likely committed procedural suicide by not opposing the detachment proceedings initiated by the State Board of Education. Despite that fact, and at a minimum, the State Board proceeding served as a vehicle to conduct discovery through the FOIA, to delineate and brief the myriad legal issues and importantly served as a 452284-v1 5 vehicle whereby the State was presented with an opportunity to avoid its current liability by - comporting its actions with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. 1. The State Court Case. At least three observations are appropriate here. First, \"but for\" the State's passage and activation of the detachment statute, the State Court case would have never been filed. Second, most of the work involved in the State Court case involved identifying, researching and setting forth the legal issues which were generated by the passage of the statute and its activation by the State. Third, most if not all of the issues could have been brought as part of the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as matters of pendent jurisdiction. 2. The State Board of Education Proceedings. Had the PCSSD not opposed the detachment process before the State Board of Education, the argument would have undoubtedly been made that it waived its right to seek relief in this Court by not exhausting its administrative remedies. The PCSSD, as a signatory to the 1989 Settlement Agreement, had no choice but to argue to the State Board of Education, among other matters, that the Board's actions were violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement in at least two particulars. Further, the motion and brief ultimately filed before this Court was in substantial measure an adaptation of the written submissions the PCSSD made to the State Board. Thus, most of the submissions made to this Court by the PCSSD were largely researched and documented as part of the process of opposing the detachment before he State Board of Education. Again, but for passage of a statute which violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement, there would have been no appearances before the State Board because the State Board would not have had this process to engage. 452284-v1 6 3-4. The Passage of the Legislation. The Settlement Agreement itself requires the PCSSD to identify, every biennium, those recent legislative acts or regulations which impede desegregation. Here, the PCSSD identified the legislation while it was still pending and, had the legislature heeded the opposition of the PCSSD to the legislation, and refused to pass the detachment statute, the State would have no _pending fee petition to defend against. 5. Appeal Time. The State's observations concerning premature appeal time are probably correct. C. Other Practices. 1. All of the time entries presented in the petition are for work directly associated with the detachment issue. Except for those entries which have been lined through, counsel for the PCSSD had no other issues pending for the PCSSD during the relevant time period. 2. That which the State regards as \"file maintenance\" is actually part of the on-going effort to maintain a \"computer searchable data base\" for the documents, orders, pleadings, etc. generated in this case. This permits a voidance of time-consuming manual searches and assists counsel in locating decades old documents, orders and pleadings through key word searches. 3. The PCSSD believes that the clippings review helped supply a more cogent and refreshed context for many of the events which surrounded the drafting and legislative journey of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Given Arkansas' singular lack of formal legislative history, the PCSSD believes that the results of these efforts fall within the broad framework of Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 452284-v1 7 4. The docket review was to locate orders, pleadings and Court of Appeals - decisions which bore upon the issue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and other potential issues. 5. The fee petition contains no \"block billing\" whatsoever. Most if not all of the alleged \"block billings\" are clearly described and invariably relate to a discreet issue or activity. Conclusion. Significantly, the State does not contend that any time was wasted or that excessive time was recorded. The absence of such an argument helps to bring the issue full circle to the core question' of: Was the time reasonably expended toward the end of securing relief from a State created process which both violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court? Having reviewed the State's response, the answer to this question appears to be clearly \"yes\" . But for the State's consideration of, passage of and activation of this detachment statute, there would be no fee petition for this Court to consider. 452284-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ______ +--------1,-------- M. Atto cial Sch 8 I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 452284-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 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 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 UJonesIII 9 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. SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. All of the matters contained herein are responsive to positions and statements made by the State as respects the fee petition of the PCSSD. 2. All of the time entries for which the PCSSD seeks reimbursement were directly related to and in furtherance of prevailing on the issue of the Jacksonville detachment effort. 3. The activities which the State characterizes as \"file maintenance\" are actually on-going efforts to maintain a computer searchable database for all of the documents, orders, pleadings and other paper generated in this case to promote efficiency and avoid wasted time in retrieving such documents, particularly documents which are several years old. 4. The clippings review was both necessary as a historical and legal exercise but was particularly time-consuming because it involved, among other matters, an era during which the State still had two statewide newspapers, generated news stories on the \"school 453181-v1 case\" on an almost daily basis, and involved hundreds of newspapers stories for the period of time in 1989 reviewed. 5. The \"document review\" was appropriate to locate those pleadings, orders, etc. which might have significance for the interpretation and implementation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 6. The fee petition does not contain any block billing. The time entries are clearly described and all relate to the legal effort to defeat the detachment issue. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 10th day of October, 2003. My Commission Expires: dean\"ie Lacour, Notary Public Pulaski County, Arkansas My Commission Exp. 12,20.2008 453181-v1 Public 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 453181-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 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 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 NEIL CHAMBERLIN October 14, 2003 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. lO ili Street St . Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED OCT l fl 2003 OfflCEOF O~tGRi'GATIOtl M0Nff08Ul6 RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans: Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief and Appendix in the above - referenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann -Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appeal \\ clerk. oct.14 . 03 st Regards, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No . 0 3 - 3 0 8 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. _MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS/MOVANTS (APPELLANTS) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF AND APPENDIX Comes the Appellants, the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for thei r Motion for Ex tension of Time in Which to File Their Brief and Appendix, state: 1 . On or about August 20, 2003, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Review Requesting Suspension of the Rules pursuant Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Motion for Emergency Stay of Judgment o f the District Court. This request came immediately following the decision of the District Court which was adverse to the Appellants. Appellants had received approval from the Arkansas State Board of Education to proceed with an election concerning detachment from Pulaski County Special District. The election was to take place on September 16, 2003. The request for expedited review and the stay was denied by this court. 2. Leading up to the filing of the appeal and the Motion for Expedited Review, Appellants' counsel had spent significant time preparing for and appearing in front of the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the Federal District Court. Appellants' counsel has been and continues to work on the case on a pro bona basis. Appellants' counsel is in a partnership with one other attorney and two staff members. The issue of detachment, and the litigation leading up to the current appeal, has taken a significant amount of office time and attorney time to pursue. Following the denial of the stay, Appellants' counsel essentially had to get back to work on matters which pay the bills. 3. The need for expedited review of the case has become moot. The election date has passed and the next possible election upon which the issue of detachment could appear on the ballot would be a school election occurring in September of 2004 or the general election occurring in November of 2004. 4. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' brief and appendix is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel himself has been \"strapped\" in court appearances and dealing with trial dates and briefing schedules in numerous cases from August 20, 2003 until October 13, 2003. 2 (b) Appellants' counsel's administrative assistant was out numerous days in late September undergoing medical treatment and was on vacation October 6 through October 10. (c) Appellants' counsel has also spent significant time since August 20, 2003 dealing with Legislative issues related to education because of his service as a State _Representative in Arkansas. The Arkansas Legislature is dealing with the impending State Supreme Court deadline dealing with the inequities and inadequacies of the Arkansas Public School System. 5. Appellants request an extension of time until November 6, 2003 in which to file their brief and appendix. A short extension will allow Appellants to properly prepare the appeal. Appellants' counsel does not believe any further extensions will be necessitated short of his death. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7 76 Telephone (501) 9 -9081 Telefax (501) 9 By: Wil CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with suff/Ft prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this day of October, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Via Fax@ 376-9442 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 3 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 Via Fax @ 374 - 4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax @ 375 - 1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 340-8285 4 Via Fax @ 375-1027 Via Fax@ 371-0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340-8282 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Telephone 682-2586 By: Via Fax \u0026amp; 682-2591 l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appealmotion tor extension.oct.14 . 03 5 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS lNTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 6 2003 UTILE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By: , DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPE:CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET Al.. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATIIERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS On July 29, 2003, I .received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal yea.r.1 I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2003. THIS DOCUfvic.1'-11 c:NTEH~C, ON JOC!\u0026lt;ET SHEET ,N COMPLIANCE NITH feLE 58 i~N~~mC[ oN_j_O t~/(} 3 BY~ t, t vJ~k~ UNITED STATESD!STIUCDGE W~l. R. WILSON, JR. 1Althou~ the proposed budget was oriJ?inally presented in April, pursuant to an order of this court, action was postponed in consideration of any decisions made by the 8th Circuit while - the case was on appeal. 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. 2002-'13 Budget 2002-03 \u0026amp;pendltures 2003-04 Budget 200.00 184.66 2,459.00 ,~ .. . .. , ., /J,J, last year, the budget includes gUErSt parking and reimbursement to support staff ror the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount bud,eled at $175. The remainder is for travel and lodging associated with the two training events explained above in Due and Fees, one for $1 ,132 and the other for $1,152. amounts that are the average of the previous costs for each of lhelie two events. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgmeints. 2002~1 Budget 2002-03 Ellpendltures 2003-04 Budget 544.00 544.00 712.00 '---------- ... , Our Insurance has increased to the ;amount shown. We were unable to find an underwritel\" at a lower rate. Page 7 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2002-03 Budget 2002.03 Expenditur'ff 2003--04 Budget 91,166.00 92,935.16* 80,018.00 ..... ,..,.,,_ .. \"Expenditures exceeded budget Ill; an unforeseen result of provisions In Act 11 of 1999, which govems certain aspecla of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Orop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of Iha 2002-03 fiscal year. Below is a breakdown by categoiy of each employee's 2003-04 budgeted fringe benefits. Increases in this category are due in part to recently-enacted legislation that changed retirement contributions. Some decrease resulted from Ms Mar:,hall's entrv into T-Droo. - Name car so,:tat Retire Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Slloct Total Allowance 8ec:1Jrtty meni !Qtlon\" lne. lndemnit.)' Term Benefits Marshall 1.800.00 7,119.82 1,208.22 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 13,024.79 Jones 960.00 4.573.78 -0- -0- -0- -0- --0- --0- 5,533.78 Powell 1,200.00 5,451.79 9,281 .48 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.0Z --\"\"'\"\"\"'' ......  .. --- .... _ --.. - --.-- .... ....... , ..... ., ...- -.-~,., ,._. ... .~ . .. -.................... _.. ................ ~_. ... .... ... _._, ______ Smith 1,200.00 5,481 .79 9,281 .48 2.478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.02 Ramer 0.00 4,030.71 6,849.57 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.86 62.88 13,7n.03 , Bryant 0.00 2,235.25 3,798.47 2,478.43 27.60 250.32 60.98 62.88 8,913.91 Act 11 of 1999 403.08 684.97 1,088.05 T~I 5,180.00 2!1,286.22 . 31 ,104.19 12,392.15 204.24 '  1,251 .6Q 3Q4.80  314.40. so.011.00 . \"Rates for hospitalization have increased this year, but the exact proportion that will be charged for each employee will not be known until LRSO negotiations have been finalized. F,,r budget preparation, we have estimated the Increase at 10%. Staff Development: Serv:ices petfonned by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. ---~ -- -03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 0.00 0.00 ., ... -  .. -... , ... _..,.,. ..... - - . .... --.... ~--~-- - 2003-04 Budget 0.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of atn 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. 2002-03 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 - ---------  -- ---Hh - Page6 Repairs and Maintenan1te; Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original :rtate 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. 2002.()'3 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 400.00 408.85 400.00 ----- - -- -~- Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 2002--03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ----- -- Salaries: Salaries are the :amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2002~3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 110,770.00 422,618.40\" 405,419.00 .. *ExpendilUres exceeded buoget as an unforeseen result of proV1s1ons in Act 11 of 1999, Which governs certain aspects of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of the 2002-03 f1SCal year. Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2003-04 salary, reflecting a 2% base increase for Ms. Marshall and, for the remaining employees, a 3.29% base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. - -.. -  N\u0026amp;Jine of Employee 2002-03 Salary 2003..CJ4 salary AnriMarshall 116,688.00 119,022.00 Melina Guldin 1 21 ,842.00 0.00 Gene Joneti 2 57,021.00 58,828.00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 70,196.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 70,196.00 .. --- ----- --..   --'- --- Polly Ramer 51 ,011 .00 52,689.00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 29,219.00 ..,.,. __. _, ., ... _...,.._..,J,. ,., J_,._,._. ___ _.. . ,. . .. ..........,. .-..~ ....- ---.--\"\"' Act 11 of 1999 s 5,269.00 . Totial 410,770.00 405,419.00 'Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, 1?1ected to receive payment ror annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 3Polly Ramer will complete her 28111 )'8ar under Iha Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 30. 2004 and will enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan fr-Drop) on that date. Act 11 of 1999 entitles Ms. Ramer to receive the amount noted. which is compensation for unused leave, as she enters TDrop. Pages - Management Services: S,ervices performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. I-~  3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditur9s 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 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. ~ - - 3Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 80.00 79.94 121.00 -- The budget covers the cost of !he 1\\rkan\u0026amp;as Democrat-Gazette, a daily source of current information on events that directly affect the school districts we monitor. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and bindmg, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 4,902.74 6,000.00 Professional and Technkal Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 ..-~-- - Rent: Expenditures for lea.sing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use . .... ~ ....... 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-G4 Budget 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,880.00 Page4 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expmse categories are from the Arkansas School F'inancial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postag,:. ~ 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 -~ ~ We were able to reduoe this budgeli category by arranging to operate on fewer phone lines. 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. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 ExpenditurN 2003-414 Budget ..... 439.00 439.00 735.00 The allotment for 200304 includes regis1ration fees for two professional events that are integral to maintaining staff skills that directly serve the mission of ODM. One is the International Association of Facilitatons, a one\u0026amp;-a-year intense training event in which Ms, Marshall hes participated fur a number of years to hone her facmtatlon ekilla by learning and pracliclng new techniques and methodologies fur facilitation, negotiation, promoUng dialogue, team building, problem solving, and conflict resolution among the parties, school perBOnnel, and patmna. The second is the National Counselors' Conference for ODM associate Ms. Powell, who is a nationally board certifl8d counselor. The conference provides professional development pertaining not only to counseling, but to special education, gifted and talentEd education, alternative learning, discipline, and achievement, all areas that she is charged with monitoring. Equipment: Expenditure:; for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. , ......... dget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-414 Budget 0.00 0.00 500.00 One of our printers, an old machine, has quit working. The repair service has told us the machine is not salvageable due to Its age. The amount budgeted in lhis categ~ry is to replace the printer, which is indispensable office equipment. Food Services: Ex:pendi1tures for food or preparation and serving of food. which may include catering. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---~--- Page3 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR2003-04 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order ,'.)f 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 ofDet:-ember 12, 1990: ... [11he office previ,:msly known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/02 %of Total 200~ 2002-03 2003-1)4 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Crull Estimated Allocation (Budget Budget not spent) PaymJlt LRSD 25,430 48.43 177,217 724 176,493 --~ .... NLRSO 8,796 16.75 61,292 250 61,042 PCSSD 18,283 34.82 127,415 520 126,895 - - '\" \"- State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 NIA 200,000 _,_,,,,_ .. Total .52,509 100.00 565,924 1,494  564,430 This chart shows that the 2003-04 Budget Allocation, the 2002-03 Credit and the 2003-04 BudgetPayment are apportioned among the three school dilitricts according lo last year's OCtober 1 enrollment numbers. After the finel 2003-04 enrollment has been tallied, we wiU adjust the figures according~, and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2003-04 budget Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to detennine 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 ofODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contriibutes 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 cU1Tent fiscal year. . ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONIT., O. RING. BUD-GET FOR 2003-04 Rf:VENUE 2002-03 2002-03 2003-o4 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansa1; 200,000;00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - LRSO Budget alloca~,t\u0026gt;n 184,295.00 184,295.00 177,217.00 Minus credit fn:,m previous year ________4_., 4 ___,_7__0__9___.0___0__ _ ........4..4...,.7..0...9....0...0.. . 724.00 ..... .......................... Equals LRSD's share of the budget 139,588.00 139,586.00 176,493.00 NLRSD Budget allocati,:,n 63,740.00 63,740.00 61,292.00 Minus credit frc,m previous year 15,463.00 15,463.00 250.00 ----------------------- uunuon onuu ............. ________________ Equal!! NLRSD's share of the budget 48,277.00 48,277.00 81,042.00 PCSSO Budget allocati,;,n 132,503.00 132,503.00 127,415.00 Minus credit frtrn previous year 32,144.00 32,144.00 520.00 OOOHOO OOOH o  o      n o ............................ Equals PCSSO's share of the budget 100,359.00 100,359.00 126,895.00 - Interest 0.00 5,441 .10 0.00 Total Revenue 580,638.00 585,979:10 565,924.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the chart above is the unspent amount of our previous year's OUdget, including bank interest eaml!d. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted ;illocatlon. Both that allocaUon and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous yea(s October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enro!lment number.; for the current year become available. -  ' EXPENDITURES 2002-03 2002--03 2003-04 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00   .- __,-, , .Y  \"-_, Dues and Fees 439.00 439.00 735.00 ,_.., _____ -- Equipment 0.00 0.00 500.00 Food Seivices 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Seri,icea 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 -Pe-riodicals 80.00 79.94 121.00 Printing \u0026amp; Blndln{1 6,000.00 4,902.74 8,000.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 -- ------- -.. Rent 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,860.00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 408.85 400.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salaries 410,no.oo 422,618.40 405,419.00 Benefits 91,168.00 92,935.16 80,018.00 -- ------ Staff Developmerlt 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplies 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 Tfl!vel 200.00 184.-66 2,459.00 Insurance - 544.00 544.00 712.00 Total El(pendltu~s 580,538.00 584,485;42 565,924.00 Difference (Income minus Expenditures) 0.00 1,493.68 0.00 TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are l pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wils U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, E'I'. AL. RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2003 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This responds to the Court's Order dated October 16, 2003, regarding the ODM proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. I am authorized to state that so long as the allocations proposed are not changed, the PCSSD has no objection to the proposed budget. 455118-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October}, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 455118-v1 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 A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair UttleRock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville A aneRebick - Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 October 31, 2003 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:l larkedu.slale.ar.us RECEIVED f\\!OV 3 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 11~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier 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 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,#92251 Attorney, 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 \u0026amp;\u0026gt;-rl.\\ , 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 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, 2003 Bas~d on'th.~ 'iqfor,friatio~'availab!e. at .Septen.,~( 301'2003, the ADE, calcuiated the Equaiizat,oi;iJl:ilridin9tor i=Y63i64;:sob;ecf fo:penoic adjustmerlfa. 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_1752","title":"Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, 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":["2003-09"],"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","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School enrollment","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, 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/1752"],"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":["108 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\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of its attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School; District Court, renewed and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; District Court, amended and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; 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.    FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP - 2 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLEF By: I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSD's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). On August 19, 2003, an order was emered granting the PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief \"Bollen\" Intervenors appealed this judgment and requested a stay from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has yet to address this matter on appeal. According to this Court's Local Rule 54.1 and Rule 54 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure a party has fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. However, PCCSD requests a stay for its motion for attorney's fees and costs until twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling. Because no party has objected to the motion, the requested extension is GRANTED. OEP CLE, 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. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its motion, states: ',   1. Ori August 18, 2003, at the conclusion of a hearing on the \"detachment issue, this Court announced its ruling that, inter alia, the State Board of Education's authorization of an election on the issue of detachment of the Greater Jacksonville area from the PCSSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. A written order was entered that day and a corrected order was entered on August 19, 2003 . 2. A motion to stay said order was heard on August 20, 2003, and denied. 3. This Court has previously and exhaustively analyzed the entitlement of the PCSSD to an award of attorneys' fees for successfully enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Please see Order dated January 30, 1998, at page 2). Counsel's regular hourly rates are to be utilized as the \"lodestar\" for determining the award even though the PCSSD received the legal services at discounted hourly rates. Id. at page 4. 4. Exhibit A to the accompanying affidavit sets forth in narrative fashion those legal services for which a fee award is sought. The narrative includes a modest amount of 446311 -v1 time devoted toward evaluating the initial legislation, monitoring its progress through legislative committees and testifying against the passage of the legislation. The narrative also includes a small amount of time devoted to objecting to the legislation once it was passed as required by Section ill D of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The remainder of the narrative commences on May 16, 2003, when the petition . proposing detachment was filed with the Arkansas State Board .of Education. The ensuing legal activities track tire development of the PCSSD's position before the State Board of Education and the two hearings before the State Board as well as the efforts of the PCSSD to identify, research and develop the legal issues which the passage of the legislation and the filing of the detachment petition generated. 6. Beginning on or about July 14, 2003, the Court will see a shift in the activities from the proceedings before the State Board of Education to the development of the successful ,, Fourth Motion to enf~rce Settlement Agreement as well as the separate action commenced in State Court. Indeed, it is anticipated that an argument will be made that activities devoted exclusively toward development and prosecution of the State Court action are not compensable and that the PCSSD should be denied fees for those efforts. Accordingly, the PCSSD has segregated those entries which relate exclusively to the State Court action as a separate portion of the narrative. 7. However, the PCSSD submits that all of the efforts and activities described in the fee narrative are compensable. It cannot be logically disputed that but for the passage of the detachment legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement) and but for the State Board of Education's acceptance of and activation of the legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement), none of the activities described in the 446311-v1 2 narrative would have been necessary or would have occurred. Thus, it is respectfully submitted, the only position which could have any legal vitality would be an argument that the PCSSD \"wasted time\" on issues that were not somehow reasonably related to the end of nullifying the election authorized by the State Board. 8. This Court did not reach the issues of special and local legislation and the equal ' . protection issue preferring to leave those two issues for resolution in State Court. Nevertheless, it cannot be reasonably gainsaid that these were not issues that the PCSSD was reasonably obligated to identify and develop toward the ultimate end of prevailing on the election issue. 9. Further, the PCS SD spent a modest amount of time developing other subsidiary issues as described in the State Court complaint. However, it cannot be reasonably said that '1' ., the identification and modest research associated with those issues was somehow a waste of ' time. Indeed, the PCSSD believes it submitted substantial separate issues to both reviewing forums any one of which in isolation was sufficient to nullify the election. 10. This motion is accompanied by an affidavit which further explains the history of enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the bases for the district's entitlement to a fee award and the narrative description of legal services rendered. 11. The PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 as reflected in Exhibit B to the affidavit. 446311-v1 3 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 ' (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. , P.A. 51 Wingate Drive  Little Rock, AR 72205 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 446311-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446311-v1 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 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. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The legal services described in Exhibit \"A\" to this Affidavit have either all been billed - to and paid for by the PCSSD or, in the case of the most recent entries, will be b~led to and paid for the PCSSD. Since at least 1993, the hourly rates for partners charged to PCSSD have been frozen at $150 per hour in recognition of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD. The principal partner timekeeper for purposes of this fee petition is Sam Jones whose current hourly rate is $215 per hour. This represents a discount to the PCSSD of just over 30% of regular hourly rates. Several other partner timekeepers appear briefly in this petition and their rates have likewise been frozen at $150.00 per hour. For purposes of this petition, and consistent with prior fee awards to the PCSSD in this case, reimbursement is sought at the current regular hourly rates of all timekeepers. The effort associated with the exposition of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, especially before the State Board of Education, was difficult and time-consuming. The files, documents, 446157-v1 orders and transcripts a decade old had to be located and thoroughly reviewed. While in the final analysis this Court appeared to have little difficulty in interpreting the clear meaning of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD necessarily had to prepare for an argument that the language in the agreement is ambiguous and that parole evidence was necessary for a full and complete understanding of the key provisions. The PCSSD submits it would have been .remiss in not completely reviewing the exhaustive history of kc;:y provision of the Settlement Agreement both in an, effort to make the State Board understand and to supply a full context for this Court. On an issue of this moment, the PCSSD perceived that thoroughness was absolutely required. It is my considered judgment that the activities described in Exhibit A were all , ' completely required for compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and were - appropriate for the ultimate purpose of prevailing upon this most significant and far-reaching issue. Indeed, failure was not an option. This Court first awarded fees to the PCSSD as a prevailing party in the matters of \"workers' compensation\" and \"loss funding\" . That petition covered work performed from 1994 through 1996. See Order dated December 10, 1996 (Docket 2880) and as corrected on December 12, 1996 (Docket 2883). This Court later awarded Mr. Jones $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, and $175.00 per hour for 1996. (Order dated December 31, 1997, see also Court of Appeals Decision 97-1350EA dated October 14, 1997). This Court also awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD as respects the pooling issue. In that Order, the Court awarded fees for the years 1993 through 1997 at $150.00 per hour, 446157-v1 2 $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, $175.00 per hour and $180.00 per hour for 1997. (Order dated January 30, 1998). On August 27, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD for the successful prosecution of the teacher retirement and health insurance appeal. It awarded $185.00 per hour for work done during 1998. (Order ' -dated August 27, 1998, 97-1794EA). STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 11th day of ' September, 2003. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 446157-v1 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201  Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P:.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldred~ \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkans~ 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall . QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446157-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 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 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.Kinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 4 C. 6Y\u0026gt;'1/\u0026gt; /~/.-e. Copy \"~ t;.,J-,. '/.\u0026gt;t'I /-J IS t .'/(:J : ltssD - J,,c.l\u0026lt;sc,w, lie Se/, I-FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 03/19/01 MS Jones, III 03/20/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/22/01 MS Jones, III 03/23/01 ~s Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/i~/01 MS Jones, III 03/29/01 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY 2001 Telephone conference with Gary Smith Prepare for Senate Education hearing Meet with Governor's staff regarding HB 1882; confer with Dr. Smith and Mr. Manfredini; attend entirety of Senate Education Committee hearing Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Appear at Senate Education hearing regarding HB 1882 Testify before legislature regarding HB 1882 Telephone conference with David Colbert Telephone conference with Gary Smith Review letter from John Walker to Representative Pat Bond Review letter from John Walker to Judge Wright HOURS/RATES/VALUE MS Jones Total 55404-v1 9 . 8 $150 $1,470.00 $1,470.00 Hours 0 .2 0.7 3.9 0.2 0.2 2 . 2 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I EXHIBIT 8 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. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from a portion of the order of the district court filed on August 18, 2003 , and the corrected order filed on August 19, 2003 , as respects the District Court's interpretation of the 8th Circuit - Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986). 447430-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~(}''-'-----'( ~  / 'M. Samue Jones mp6~60) ( Attorneys r Pulaski-County Special , School 806 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 September 16, 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 111 S. 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Case No . 4:82CV00866 WRW Re: LITTLE ROCK SHCOOL DIST vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Dear Sir : Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/ 18 / 03 Order filed 8/ 19 / 03 RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The appellant is in non-compliance with Eighth Circuit Rule 3B for not submitting an Appeal Information Form (Form A) with the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, we are providing the appellant (Form A) to complete and submit to the Court of Appeals and (Form B) to serve upon the appellee. Sincerely, Ja~. McCormack, Clerk . ,  r~~ By:~~ Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/ encs. Counsel of Record U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form CASE NAME (Underline name of Appellee): GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTIIA WHATLEY, SUE ANN WHISKER vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS Appeal Docket No. 03-3088 CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? t8J Yes O No Ifno, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS. Whether or not the District Court erred in his interpretation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986) DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUITABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT' SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? 0 Yes. t8J No. Ifno, state why. Appellee has no desire or motivation to discuss settlement. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: M. SAMUEL JONES III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 Copy 1 - Send to Appellant Copy 2 \u0026amp; 3 - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Copy 4 - Retain 445092-vl EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JO HN D. DAVIS JI/DY SIMMONS HENRY Michael Gans, Clerk of the Court 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501 ) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONA LD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOV ER Writer's Direct Dia l No . 501-212- 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com September 16, 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 RE: 03-3088 Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  .Lkeasted1opn,tCIK:ebelamtbt: Uai Sates hlt:DI mt/ Ttadt:awr Of6ce RECEIVED SEP 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Sue Ann Whisker (Appellants) vs. Pulaski County Special School District (Appellee) On Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas; USDC No. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Michael: Enclosed are two copies of Appellee's Form B - Appeal Information Form. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding copies of the above to the attorney for the Appellant. MSJ:ao Enclosure cc: Mr. Will Bond All Other Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP t:..- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v . No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfffNG PLAINTIFF . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education, and for its Motion for Extension of Time, states: 1. On September 11 , 2003, PCSSD filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys ' Fees with this Court. 2. A response is currently due to this Motion on or before September 25 , 2003. Due to undersigned counsel's travel and deposition schedule, he has been unable to prepare a response to date. Undersigned requests a ten-day extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion, that is, until October 6, 2003. 3. Pursuant to local rules, undersigned contacted opposing counsel, Mr. Samuel Jones III, with regard to this Motion, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. WHEREFORE, the Arkansas Department of Education requests that the Court grant its Motion for Extension of Time. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on September :l )., 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mark A. Hagemci IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK 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. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED ' S O1 ~TR' C1' COURT L!.   1-s---1cT A''KANSAS c:ASTERN ' '' \" SEP 2 \u0026gt;2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK By; OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3807) to reply to the PCSSD's fee petition (Doc. No. 3804). The ADE requesi:s an exte1;1Sion - to October 6, 2003, ten days from the original deadline, to respond, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. The ADE's motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED1his 23rd day of September, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREO ON TJNfi/Jli'l:ff.4~~ OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WM. R. WILSON, JR. WITH RULE 58 AN~~ FRCF oN 9-a~-0-1-sv~wc + TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA1~SAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette 9 ... z::; ~ 05 Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmissioni MESSAGE SENT BY: rt; Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 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. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 omcEOF ~st{3{E~AllON MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR TEMPORARY PORTABLE BUILDINGS AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. For the 2002-2003 school year, the 11th day enrollment at Robinson High School was 593 students. 2. The 11th day enrollment for the current school year is 681 students of whom 307 are African-American and 374 are other. 3. The increase in enrollment is attributed to an increase in M-to-M students, the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which was a predominately AfricanAmerican institution and the change in 9th grade athletic participation instituted by the Little Rock School District. 4. Robinson is currently holding class in the cafeteria, the band room, the rAW auditorium and the gym. 449094-vl 5. To accommodate the increased enrollment for the balance of the school year and to evaluate the propriety and necessity for permanent classroom additions, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable buildings for the balance of the school year to accommodate the current enrollment. 6. If during the coming weeks the PCSSD determines that the increased enrollment is likely permanent, it will evaluate the prospect of classroom additions to the campus and apply to this Court at the appropriate time for permission to construct such additions should they prove necessary. 7. These circumstances are more fully explained in a memo dated September 4, 2003, from the principal at Robinson, which is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. WHEREFORE, and as an interim measure, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable classrooms for the balance of the 2003-2004 school year and for all proper relief. 449094-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School  trict 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mr. Clayton Blackstock 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 449094-vl 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 A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  09/18/2003 14:58 5014901352 EQUI1Y PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/03 SEP O 9.2003 Robinson High School 21501Hwy10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Phone: 501-86~400 Joy L Plants Principal Emall-jplants@pcud.org MEMO To: Dr. Brenda Bowles From: Ms. Joy Plants )( Date: Thursday, September 04, 2003 Fax: 50.1-868-2405 Dr. Yoloundro Williams Assistant Princ:ipal Emoil-ywlJliams@pcssd.org John Pearee As~istant l'rlnc:ipal fmail-Jpearce@pcssd.org - Re: Increased Enrollm':fJtlFaci/ity Needs Due to a larger than usual influx of students, we are in desperate need of three portable classrooms. This year we have had an increase of Minority to Majority enrollment from 33 percent to 45 percent. This enrollment change was in part due to the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which is a predominately minority institution. As well as, Little Rock School District's change In ninth grade athletic participation. We also have had some students that have moved from the private sector to Robinson High School. In effort to hold true to Desegregation Plan 2000, we have continued to welcome students to our school. These are indeed excellent problems to have. However, our total enrollment has increased from 594 at the end of last year to 682 to date. We have at present classes being held in the cafeteria, the band room, the auditorium, and the gym. We also have some teachers sharing classrooms at the same time. To accommodate our increase in numbers, we have also had to hire two new teachers. We continue to be in the midst of schedule changes to accommodate students and balance classes. Yet and still with those changes, we still need classroom space for .classes. EXHIBIT I ---'I)_,,____ 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. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITCi1lNG RENEWED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On March 11 , 2003, this Court entered its Order authorizing the PCS SD. to temporarily utilize a portable building, until the end of the 2002-2003 school year, for the Sylvan Hills band room because of persistent water problems. 2. In the interim, the PCSSD solicited proposals from contractors toward the end of \"correcting\" the water problem. The Sylvan Hills band room is built partially underground. 3. Counsel is informed that one contractor agreed to guarantee his work for one year and that all other contractors declined to extend any guarantee whatsoever. 4. Because the problem persists, the PCSSD has made the decision to abandon efforts to correct the water problem and to commit to new construction on the same campus. 5. Accordingly, the PCSSD now requests two approvals from this Court: First, authorization to lease a portable building to be used as the band room until permanent construction is concluded, and second, to approve construction of a replacement facility on the 447293-v1 current Sylvan Hills campus. Neither authorization will affect the capacity of the Sylvan Hills school. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for authority to lease a portable building to be used as a temporary band room and for further authority to construct a permanent replacement for the current band room on the Sylvan Hills campus. 447293-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 447293-v1 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903  1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913  1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK I. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR , JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMBS J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201  3699 (501) 3710808 FAX (501) 3769442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. S0l-212-1273 mjones@wlj .com September 26, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY IBRRY I. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY l . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW JR.BY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD  I...iot!mod1opn,;tic,:bt:Afftbt: Uaill:lt!Sarcs h1e111 ud Tndt:llwk O/fk% RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 6 2003 OfRCf OF OESEGREGAT!Oti MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I am informed that the PCSSD Board is taking another look at the potential for repairing the Sylvan Hills band room. Hence, I have amended our motion, courtesy copy enclosed. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 450331-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 6~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 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. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its amended and supplemental motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD filed a motion on September 23, 2003, seeking certain reli~f as respects the Sylvan Hills band room. That motion remains pending. 2. Today counsel for the PCSSD was informed that the Board has reconsidered the issue of a permanent replacement for the structure and has instructed the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services to re-examine the prospects of securing a workable and practicable repair solution to the water problems in this band room. 3. Accordingly, the PCSSD hereby amends its pending motion to drop, at least for the moment, its request for permission to build a new structure while it re-examines the prospect that a less costly but effective repair solution can be pursued. 4. The PCSSD retains its request for permission to lease a portable building to house the band program for the balance of the current school year, and states that it has located an \"acoustically appropriate\" structure for lease. 450309-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court permitting it to lease a portable building for the balance of the school year to house the band program at Sylvan Hills and for all proper relief. 450309-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B ~:....::::::::::::::._~~~~~=----ch o o l 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall 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 450309-v1 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Littls Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carfis/s Luke Gordy Van Bursn Robert Hackler Mountain Home caMn King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville - ~ebick I. I Diane Tatum I I Pine Bluff I l Jeanna Westmoreland I Arkadelphia :l i :1 :i ,1 !l ;, ;J if 1J I l 'l /j Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 September 29, 2003 501-682-4475 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ larked11.state.ar.,u RECEIVED SEP 3 o 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG~TIOH MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 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 - --- ---- - - - - - 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 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 29, 2003, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 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 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 September 30, 2003 B.ased :on.~e' informat,onjivailabie at August 31 ;-: 2003.,tpe APE calculated the Eqllalizaiio'n Furidirig for;fY03i04;' s~bjecf to penod1c 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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1383","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Motions Hearing''","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, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-18"],"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","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Motions Hearing''"],"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/1383"],"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":["165 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":11,"next_page":12,"prev_page":10,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":120,"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}}]}}