{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1738","title":"District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order.","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":["2002-04"],"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 School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Retirement","Insurance","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Students","African Americans--Education","School enrollment","School attendance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order."],"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/1738"],"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":["64 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 filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order dated March 1, 2002; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, order; Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, second motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; 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 RECEIVED APR -1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") files the agreements identified below and attached hereto as required by the Court's order filed March 1, 2002: I. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD; 2. Early Childhood Special Education agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD andNLRSD; 3. Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: unitary status, sale of bonds and $20 million loan. 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and the State re: magnet seats. 1 5. Agreement between the LRSD and Knight dated February 6, 1999, re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1Attached is what the LRSD believes to be the final draft of that agreement. Counsel for the LRSD could not locate an executed copy of the agreement in their files. - 6. Agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua and Knight dated February 8, 1999 re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 7. Settlement Agreement between the LRSD and PCSSD dated February 9, 1999 re: pooling agreement and teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 8. Agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 re: past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring of the LRSD. 9. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as modified and incorporated into Section 4 of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Section E of PCSSD's Plan 2000 (not attached). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989 (not attached). The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31 , 1989. Magnet Stipulation dated February 16, 1987 (not attached). M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 (not attached). Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCTA regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BYoiu~:c. t-~d' Fendley, Jr. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 1, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 A. COVER PAGE Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program , PROJECT TITLE Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 1. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Institution Little Rock School District and University of Central Arkansas Please check ~ categcry: Recruilment -L Preparation __ Professional Dev. b. Street/P.O. Box_ __- -\"9'\"'4. .1.7. \"--\"G\"\"e'\"'\"y\"\"er-'S\"\"p'-'-r'-'-in_,g=-s.:..R:.:o.:a=-d_ ___c . City Little Rock GRANT APPL/CATION NO. d. County ___ P-'u=la~s\"'\"k'\"\"i ___________ e. State_\"\"'A'\"'R ___ f. Zip Code. _ __:.7-=2=20=9._ __ _ g. PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) Name _ W.;..:.;:a:.:.:n.:d=-a ,B:.:a:.;:s:.:.:k:..:.;in:.:.s..:a:.:..:n.:d..;.Ka::ac.:.:.th.:.:.;lee=-=n'-\"A..,t,.,,ki::..,.n:::..s _______________ _ Email: WFBaskila)MCC.LRSD.Kl2.AR.US Telephone: 501-570-4144, 501-224-7736 and 501-450-5429 Department: Career and Technical Education Fax: 501-570-4144 and 501-224-7736 2. NAME(S) OF COLLABORATING SCHOOL 3. NAMES, TITLES AND PHONE #'S OF COLLABORATING SCHOOUCOLLEGE OFFICIALS Dr. Kathleen Atkins, Chair of Early Childhood and Special Educ. 501-450-5429 DISTRICTIS) AND COLLEGES Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special School District, UCA, UAPB, UALR, and Henderson PERSONS WHO WILL PROVIDE INSTRUCTION (name and department) A Dr. Alvin Futrell, ColleQe of Education at Henderson and Dr. Kathleen Atkins, ColleQe of Education at Univ of Central AR  Or. Bill GeiQer, ColleQe of Education at UALR 3. Or. Dorethea Davis, College of Education at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 6. PROPOSED FUNDING 7a. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT a. Grant Request $ 47,400 .00 (#) OF APPLICANT INSTITUTION(S): b. Applicant Match $ 48,050 .00 .00 7b. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (#) OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SERVED: c. Cooperating Partner Match $ $ 1---------------+--------------i d. Other .00 Ba. PROJECT START 8b. PROJECT DURATION e. TOTAL $ 95,450 .00 JANUARY 1, 2002 12 MONTHS 9. PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 10. 11 . AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT ACTION TAKEN a. Awarded ____ _ b. Rejected ____ _ :eturn for amendment _____ _ d. Withdrawn _____ _ NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 12. FUNDING a. Grant Award $ b. Applicant Match $ c. Cooperating Partner $ Match d. Other $ e. TOTAL $ TITLE: DATE: TITLE: DATE: 13. REMARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOT Program Director Chair/Early Childhood TOT Project Director Chair Early Childhood ...;  EXHIBIT \\_--------~------..J-----~---------~1 I !,. IC 8. PROJECT ABSTRACT Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program Please type. Complete all items on both sides. This form will be submitted to the Governor's office. PROJECT TITLE: Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 INSTITUTION: University of Central Arkansas PROJECT DIRECTOR(S): Wanda Baskins (Little Rock School District) Dr. Kathleen Atkins (U.C.A) PARTICIPATING LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District Category chosen ___X _T eacher Recruitment and Retention _____ Teacher Preparation ~ ___ Teacher Professional Development (check which area) Mathematics Science __ Foreign Language __ Special Education NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: _330 _In-Service Teachers --- Pre-Service Teachers _50_ College Faculty _350_ Other (Explain) Celebration in Teaching Program Banquet and Hall High Symposium PROJECT RATIONALE (Brief statement of assessed needs) : According to The National Education Association we are facing the most critical teacher shortage in history . Nationwide, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition, retirement, and increased student enrollment. An estimated 6 percent of the nation's teaching force leaves the profession and 7 percent change schools per year. The National Center of Education Statistics report twenty percent of all new teachers will leave the field of teaching within three years, while nearly fifty  percent of new teachers in urban areas will exit the profession their first five years of teaching . As we face higher teacher attrition rates and decreased number of graduates in teacher education programs, public school student enrollment will continue to increase. By 2008 public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, and approximate 2 million increase over today's enrollment. - While research based statistics on teacher shortage in Arkansas are difficult to locate, districts in the state are finding that hiring new teachers is becoming more problematic (\"School Districts Make Sweet Deals to Attract Teachers,\" Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1999). The Arkansas Department of Higher Education 2 disseminated data in 2000 on the number of graduates with Baccalaureate and Master's Education Degrees in Arkansas from 1994-1999. This data indicates fewer number of students graduated with education degrees jiSE and MSE degrees combined) in 1999 than in previous years. Clearly this will have an impact on the . ilability of future teachers. Recruitment of future teachers must also focus on quality. With the current state and national emphasis on student achievement, we must recognize in order to improve student achievement we must improve the quality of teaching. Our future teachers of Arkansas must receive preparation programs that ensure the building of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a qualified teacher. The Teachers of Tomorrow Program seeks to continue long-range teacher recruitment efforts for Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts by promoting and expanding the future teacher clubs/classes and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. Although fewer college students are pursuing teaching careers, the redesign of the Teachers of Tomorrow Program using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet and Pro Team curriculum is encouraging. The Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) funding is vital for the enhancement of secondary and middle school classes being offered, and is needed to help provide networking opportunities for educators in the state who are interested in teacher recruitment and retention. \"For many, the pre-teaching experience acts as a springboard to college, career, and personal relationships where learning can be applied and nurtured.\" (May 2001 Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.) 3 GOALS (Statement of specific learning and performance objectives for participants): 41,als of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, TOT 2002, are to: 1) implement elective classes designed to encourage secondary students to consider teaching as a profession (using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet curriculum) 2) promote networking and recruitment opportunities between public schools, two-year colleges, and four year institutions 3) develop an awareness about the teacher shortage in Arkansas and 4) complete training/certification of two Teacher Cadet trainers. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT} which will be shared publicly (200 words): The Teachers of Tomorrow program seeks to continue its long range teacher recruitment efforts for Arkansas by promoting and expanding the existing Teachers of Tomorrow program and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. The activities will include: providing materials and training for secondary school teachers to implement the Teacher Cadet class (senior high school) curriculum developed by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment.  conducting a statewide Teacher Recruitment Conference in fall 2002 that is designed for secondary and higher education students, public school administrators and faculty, and teacher educators.  providing the means for two Arkansas teachers to become Teacher Cadet trainers (by completing final cycle of training in Little Rock summer workshop).  designing and distributing a teacher recruitment pamphlet for students in two-year colleges . .  supplying Teachers of Tomorrow Clubs and TOT coordinators in the tri-district area with support in order to plan student activities and carry out various collaborative activities.  Expand elective classes to include middle school students exploring teaching as a career (using the South Carolina Pro Team Curriculum).  Create a TOT website which will include a database for club and class participants. Institutions involved in the Teacher of Tomorrow collaborative include: Little Rock School District, North - ittle Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, Henderson State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 4 . .03/ 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 I t \u0026gt;    EQUITY Pl.FIL SERVICE .. I( : ~. .- 2-1-20. 02. 1.0 ;~ 14 . F.'R (JII! TO:';'l~ i\"---------~ ~- ------------=---- : . :  .. I ' I ; ; CONSOLIDATED PRESCHOOL ' GRANT APPLICATION FOR I ' SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ; : RELATED SERVICES : :::  : I .. . . ,   ~ L  \\ . . I j ; .. ' ; ; ' I I . I I SECTION6J.9 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH I I DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT ' I. -AND STATE FUNDS /: I :1 : I' ' ~ ' ' ' : : fi ' i ; ' : ; ' ARKANSAS DEPARTivfENT OF EDUCATION ., : , ; ' 2001-02 .. ' : ,. f .. I .. i ; I .. ; . . '. ' ., : ; J .. ' : -- - -- ..  i l .~ IC p~ 02/16 P . 002\"'01 .1 i: ! .. , i ' :t ., '  ' . I ; : : - '' i ! ii !/ ~ -. '  ! ' : ; EXHIBIT z ' I I i '  ' . ;., , - 1: : . ,. :i l !! I I EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '34900254 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVlCE AGENCIES . Adopdon of Proccdul\"C$: The applicant agrees to implement Spectal Education and Related '. Srrvi~~: Procedural \u0026amp;cp,tremuit:l and Program Standards and S~cial d11catlon Ellgib/Jily ; Cr/Jeri a and Program Guidelims for Childrun with Dlsabilitie$. Ages 3  21 to ensure that it  provid~ special eduwion services to emlble clu1dren with disabilities, ages three to; five~ to ' participate in regular educational programs and that each child has a properly developed , inc,vidualized education program. ; AdvJSory Committee: Where several LEAs consolidated their prcschool .scmccs, the applicant :. agrees to establish a local advisory committee. The committee must consist of the special ; edu~tion supervisors from participating LEAs and at least one superintendent. The committee : will be co-chaired by the early childhood coordinator and a LEA special education supervisor : select~ by the committee. The committee will meet at least bi-monthly, DocumentAtion of each meeting will be kept en file. : A!,istive Technology: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300,308, shall ensure that . assistive technology devices or assistive technology~ or both, as defined in 34 CFR 300.5 ,  300,6, are made available to a: child with a disability if required as a part of the child's (1)  Special Ed1.1cation under 34 CFR 300,26, (2) R~ated services under 34 CFR 300,24, or (3)  Supplementary aids and ser'.Vices under 34 CFR 300,28 and 300,SSO(b)(2), : Child Ctrc: The applicant assures that preschool grant funds shall not be used for the securing ' ofbasic child care and that these monies be used only for the provision of special education and rcl~ted services rend~ by,. a qualified provider. It i\u0026amp; pemussible ro expend preschool grant funds to pay costs associ.ited with a regular daycare placement when it is determined ~hat: ' l,;'~stidr educational placement-is needed to provide :a Free Appropriate Public Education ' (FAP.E) to a child, and  . ,. I ~- ; ; ' '  2. ::sbch:educarlqnal placement is necessary to satisfy th~ provisions of the cl\\ild's individualii=  , : education program (lEP). The decision to place a child'\"in, a rc:gula.r daycare program -win be made on a ca1\u0026amp;-by-asc oasis, The State guidelines for a Integrated Preschool Settine must be used in determining a child's ; riee.d(for,an educatjonai pla~ent in a regular daycare program .  1., : , . . Complaint ProcufuttS of ID State! The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 660, ' ~ that it will provide a. copy of the wrinen procedures fur Complaint Management to parents of children with disabilities when they llre notified of their procedural safeguar\u0026lt;is, 2 .. .. , ' I PAGE 03/16 P.003-'014  :i ; 1 i ' I ,''- . 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 'i ;_  . :I . l\". FR-, 21-20 02 10~ 14 ~: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: ';),q~e0c:54 , Coordination of Projects: The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 76.580, as~ : to the extent possible, it coordinate each of its projects with other activities that are in the same ; geographic area served by the project and targeted groups. Appropriate methods of coordination  include:   l. :Planning the project with organizations and individuals who have sinu1ar objectives or concerns; : 2.  Sharing information, facilitie~, staff, services or other resourc~;  J .. ~ngaging in joint activities such as instruction, needs assessment, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance or swf training; ;. 4., 1N?_t ~uplicating or counteracting the effects of funds used under 9thcr programs; ilild S. Using the project funds to increa.(e the impact of funds made available under other programs , . :for the same purpose. Dls:ciplinnry Information: The applicant, in accordarn:e with 34 CFR JOO .Sl9  300.529, ' as~r'es thnt it will maintain in the records ofa child with a disability a statement of any current  or -previous di5ciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statei:nent -~ to th~ same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the  studt;tt records ofnondisahled children. If the State has such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include: both the child1 s current individuaftz;cd education program and any such statement of current or previous disciprmary action that has been taken !lgainst the child. ' Idui!:itional Responsibilil)'! The applicam agrees to provide special education and related  services on the behalf of assigned LEAs for duldrcn with disabilities, ages three to five; under  Section 619 of IDEA 97. The applicant will develop an inter-agency agreement with the: : appropriate Head Start pro,rain for the provision of special education a.nd related services as specified in the Memo~-um ofUndersr.anding (between the Arkansas Department ofE.ducation and !_iead Start) consi!tent with the federal regulations for Head Stcrt, Public Law 102A01 . . E1cess Cost: The applicant, in accordance ',l,,'ith 34 CFR 300.184  300.185, a.$SUres that funds pr9ided under Section 619 of IDEA 97 wit! be used Q!ll:l for excess costs. Extended School Ycsr: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.309, shall ensure that ~ded school year $er-vices are available as n~ as to provide a m:e appropriate public education. H~r.ing Aids: The applieant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.3031 shall ensure that the hearing aids wom in school by children with hearing impairments. including d~ are functioning properly . . . . I : . -: .. . : ; :,, PAGE 04/16 P,l!IEM'01,q -I !: rnunv PUPIL SERVICE T0:'3'1~4 Least Restrictive Environment: The applicant, in accord Mee with 34 CFR. 300.SSO - 300.556, assures it has adopted the policies and procedures of Special Education and l~laled Serv/\"3: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Section IJ, pages 1 and 2; and Section 17, pag$2. I L\u0026amp;2J lnterngcncy Committee: The applicant agrees to establi$h a local interagency committee comr.osed oflocal agencies and int~ parties for the dissemination of information and to establish a network of services. The committee will meet at le~ quarterly. Documentation of attendees and minutes of i;aeh mc::ting must be kept on file. Meet[nis: The applicant agrees that individuals employed under this application will p81t!cipate in training institutes and scheduled meetings sponsored by the Arkansa. Department of 4.u~tion, Sp~ial Edu~tion. I N o.n~crimhultioa and Employment of tndividuala wil.h Disnbilitics: The applicant assu~ that the program assisted under. Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be operated ,n compliance with Title!45 of the Code ofFedenl Regulations, Pa.rt 84. (A formal ast:Urance statemem should be on -~e with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Hllman Services.) , I Nonsuppbnting: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.230, usures that funds prqvided. under Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be used to supplement and, to the cctcnt ptjlciicablc, increuc the level of State a.nd Local funds e,\u0026lt;pended for the education of children with disabilities, ages three to 6ve. and in no case to supplant those State and Local funds. :: ..- :; ,, : . Nti~ber or Days for l\u0026gt;ired Services: The prcscltool instructional calendar shall consist of200 days of direct services .funded by the prescltool grant. The first day of services can be Jio earlier th~\\August' 1. Dim:t services will cease by June 30. An audit will be peronned to verify sctvice delivery of200 days; Faiturc to comply will result in an audit e,c~on. Please provide a school calendar or llstin.g of day per momh that services will he provided. Please use the caJ~dar included in the application. Personnel Devdopment: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR. 300.221, assures that it ba.-. tiled':with the State information to demonstrate that (1) all personnel necessary to cany O'llt Section 619 o!lDEA 97 within the jurisdictign of the agency are adequate!y prepared cons~ wi~ the requirement of 34 CFR 300.380- 300.382, and (2) to the extent the public agency determine! appropriate, it shall contribute to and use the Comprehensive System of P~onnel Development of State established under 34 CFR 300.135. 1 f, . . Foliciet .and Program, Consistent with EUgfbillty Provisions: The appficant. in accordance withi 34 CFR 300.220, assures that it has in cffcc:t policies.. procedure! and programs- that are ~$istei,t with Stare policies and procedlftS established under 34 CFR 300.121 - 300.156 . . The applics.nt mUSt have on file with the State polici~ and procedu~ on the following: (l} Child Identification, (Z) Confidentiality, and (\u0026gt;) Individualized Education Program. I I ' 4 ': I ' . / PAGE 05/16 P,00S\"014 / . 1: .; 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 l1 : ~~~ ;10:1~ FROM: . j iii . EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TOt94980a54 iL\\ ,  .-;,, Procrdund Safeguards: The spplicant, in accordance with 34 CPR 300.500 - 515 300.517 incorybrat~ by rcfcn:nc~ tile proi:ed1.2~ of the SEA in Special Education and Relatfd  Stsl'Vices: Procedural Reqz/iJ-emrmts and Program Standards., Sections 4 through 16. , \"ro,grnm Options: The applicant, in aoc;ordance with 34 CFR. 300.124, usures compliance with th~provi~on of.a continuum ofser-lice options. The program options that arc designed to meet thejull educational goal in pre.school education are as follows: 1. , Preschool class on the public school campus 2. Regular p~hool (including Head Start)  3. Special Day Service Facility licensed by Developmental Disability Services  4. 'Home ServiQ?S 5. Itinerant Service - Services provided to children through an itinerant mode for intensive _;_ ,  :.i?struction which may~ developmentally appropriate or therapeutic. Primary use of.this '  service may be speech-l11nguage pathology given by a qualified provider or special instruction . by an e.u-ly childhood special education consultant teacher. 6 .. '. '.Hospital 7. Re!idential  Note: Each child mu!t be presented with at least three placement options (settings) wh~re the IEP can be appropriately implemented.  P~t~tion in tvnlu!!rion Procedures: The applicant, in ~ccordance with 34 CFR 300.530. ' 300.536, adopts by reference the procedures of the SEA in Special EducaJJon and Related . Se.ry/ce3: Procedural Requirements a,id Program Standards, Sections 4, 6 and 7.  I f   , , Pul\u0026gt;l~c! Control of Funding: The appUce.nt assures that control of funds provided under Section '.. 619 qflDEA 97 and Statc/I.oc.al funds committed to Special Edu.cation in accordance with Ark 6de Ann. 6-203 l 0 and title to property acquired with those funds is in a public agency for the ._ \\lSCS and purposes-authorized and as provided in the Mansas Department of Education, School  and :Educational Service Cooperative F'inincial Accounting Manual. . .. J:lccdrd, lhld Reports: The:applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.240, agrees to ;provide information as may be neceasary to enable the State Education Agm:;y to perf'mm its duticz, and  the applicant agrees to -keep such records a, the State Educ:itional Ageney may require to ensure '. rhe'~rrectness and verification ofthe iruorma.tio~  Rctciltion of Records: Education Department General Adrninisir:\u0026gt;tive Regulations (EDGAR) 34: CFR. 76.734 requires that recipients of Section 619 funds retain for five (5) years after completion of the activity for which they use grant or subgrant funds, any record needed to fully show compliance with pn)~ and administrative requirements. The Special Education Office !fas been advised by the U.S: Department ofEducation, Office of. Special Education Programs, 5 PAGE 07/16 .-.-,w. .. I   I I I I; Ii !' ~: 1 .. ... ,''. EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ that~ include individualized education progmns (IDs). The ilRplir.ant as,w~ to take all of the necessan: steps to retain nil records for at tesst five (S} years after tbe completion of the activitv S~ces :ind Aid.s That Also ~enetit No.nd.i!abled Oindren: The applicant, in accordance with: 34 CF'R. 300.235, as!ures that costs of special education and related services and supp/ementary aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to 2 ,}illci with a disability are in accordance with the individualized education program of a. child, even if one or more nondisabkd children benefit from such services. . I . Gtn~rnl Education l\"n,visiona Act: The applicant assures that it will comply with :the assurances set forth below as stated in the General Education J\u0026gt;rovisions Act in compliance with 20 llS.C. 1.232 e(b)(J),(S),(7),(A)\u0026amp;(B),(S) and (9). The general application submitted by a i pu~li~ asency under subsection (a) shall \u0026amp;et forth assurances -   1)  1'hiU the public agency will administer each program covered by the application in  accordance with all appUe2ble statutes. regulations, program plans, and applications; ; 2) : That the control of funds pr.ovided to the public agency under each program and titl~ to : property acquired with those funds, will be in a public agency and that a public aiency will  . :~minister those funds and property;  : 1' 3) .. That the public agency will use fiscal control and :fund accounting procedure\u0026amp; that will ensure  .' P,roper disbursem~ of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to that agency under each \\ ;:program; t) ;i'l:h~t the public agency will make reports to the State agency or board and_ :to :,the .. ) Commissioner u may reasonably be necessary to enable the Stare agency or board: and:the ;: .. -Commissioner to perform their duties and that the public asency will maintain such records, J ncluding the records required under Section 437, and provide access to those records, as !he  St~te agency or board or the Commission~ deem necessary to pem,rm their dutic~ 5) . That the public agency will provide reasonable opportuniti~ for the participation QY ~e~ : parents, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals in the planning for an ;  : operation of each program;  6) ,That any application. evaluation, periodic program plan or report refating to each program : will be made readily available to parents and othet memben of t~c general public; 7) . That in the case of any project involving construction - A.) The project is not inconsistent with overall Staie plans for the construction of school facilities, and 6 . ,,, : PAGE 08/16 P.007\"81~ .j ., ! j. I  1 ; . i ! !:\u0026gt;Ul4'.:H:H 352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '3\"t~  / B) 1n developing plans f'or construction, due consideration will be given to excellence of   architecture and d~ign and to c:ompliance with standard~ prescribed by th1: Scc:~buy under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to emure that fkcilitica ' ' construeted with the use ofFedcral funds are acc:!Ssiblc to and usable by individuals with disabilities; . . . I S) '.That the public: agency has adopted emctive procedures for acquirilli and disscmi~atirig to teachers and admmistrators participating in each prosram significant information from , cduational research, demonstrations, and .similar projects, and for adoptini where  I '  appropriate, promising educational p~cticcs developed chrough such projects; and 9) .: That none of the funds expended undc:r any applicable pYOgnm wtll be used to ' acquire equipment (Including computer software) in any inStance in which such acquisition results . , . _ir,i a direct financial benefit to any organization representing the interests of the purchasing ,.. :: entity or its employees or ~y affiliate of such an organization.  Notice of Required Actinn~ by tbe SEA . The SEA is required under Section 619 of IDEA 97 to pr~vide notice to public agencies of the foll,o~ing actions: Direct Services by the Seate .Educ:ttion Agcnty: The Arkansas Department cf Education (ADE), Speci~l Education.Unit has the responsibility to ensure that the provisions of a free appropriate public education (F APE) are met for eligible stud~s with disabilitie5, ages 3 - 21. Consistent with the provision! afJ4 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 300.360, a State Education Agency (SEA) shall use the payments tlm othei:wiae would have been available to an LEA or to a State agency to provide special ed~cation arid r.cl~ scrvic:es directly to children with disabilities residing in the area served by that local agency, or for whom tha1 State agency is n:sponsiblc, if the SEA determines that the LEA or Stat~ agency - a. Hu not provided the infonnation needed to establish the eligibility of the agency undsr  Part B of lhe Act; . -~. Is unable to establish and maintain programs ofFAPE that meet the requirements of this , ',! I ; part; .. :c.  1s unable or unwilling robe consolidated with one or more LE.As in order to. establish and ; ,,'. ,; .; maintain the programs; or  , d. Has one or more children with disabilitiC$ who .can best be served by a regional or State program or service-delivery system designed t9 meet the needs of these childmi, 7 PAGE 10/16 P. 008-'e:. :, ., :J i I . , :: i , ;ii . r:: I . i i I ; ~: 1 ! 1r :l i 1:. i 1.JJ l I ... . !: .  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: 9\"1900254  ..: , ! , When It is brought to the attention of the ADE through: .  ai  The enforcement of a decision .from an Impartial Due Process Hearing; b.  A complaint invcstignrion under the Complain, Procedures of the State; . c: Compliance monitoring of a public s.gency; or ' .  ,: l A request from a parent or public; aicncy tha~ the SEA assume the responsibility for . Direct Services; , I . . '. th~:ADE, Special EducatiotrUnit will implement the following procedures before final action is ' tak;ai by the ADE to assume the provision of Direct Services to an eligible student(s) with ~'-, ~i~iliti~s, ages 3 - 21. 1.  The Associate Director for Special Education will: :  a; Provide written notice co the public ag~cy that the SEA ha.s re3$on to suspea t~t it is . not providing a free appropriate public education to an eligible student(s) with .  ; : , disabiliti.es. ages 3 - 21, on rhe basis of one or more of the conditions set forth in 34 CFR . 300.360    -:bl  State the sourcc(s) of the_ infonnatio~ that has led.the SEA to suspect that the district is . not providing a fu;c appropriate public erlucution for the student(s) in question. c. Appoint a Team to conduct an investigation onhe situ.stionfc;omplaint.  I ; ; l.  ,The Investigative Team will review the public agency's provision ofFAPE in light of the  ; 'conditions set forth in 34 CFR 300.360.  . . : 3 . . The Team will follow the procedures the ADE has ~opted for its Complaint Procedures of ' ; the, Slate, as provided for in 34 CFR 300.660  300.662. ; . :.; ; i . : . . . . : 4,:;1The.Team will provide a written report and submit it to the Associate Ditectot. S' .. iF'.ollowing receipt of the report. the Associate Director will notify the parties concerned as \u0026gt;to the findings of the !nvc.,tigative Temn.  6 . . : Showd sufficient _evidence exist -to demonstrate that the public agency is not providing F ~  as a result ofa condition in 34 CFR 300.360, the Associate Director \"'ill notify the puplic agency that the ADE. intends to take the neccasary 3teps to provide Direct Servi~c:s to an . '.. .eligible swdcnt(s) with disabilities, ages 3 -21, within the jurisdiction of the public'ageticy. 8 i :' PAGE 11/16 P.089\"1U\u0026lt;I ,i .i ; ! I .! . . . ! u~, ~ ~l~UU~ 10 ; ~~ OOlq~Ul3~L EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE J: -~1-2002 :nh1, ml'!= TQ:94900254 \"I . : r . . .. . ,. .   : r ., . , I : !; ~1 , . i 1. I I r,=- I :1 -,;   1! ' I_ l i \\ : ;: ,. ! r  1 :1 t J! ! l I I' 1'. ! '\"i' ;: ! ' ~ ~ .' ''. ; 7. ,The public agency will be provided notice that it h~ the opportunity for a hearing on this :matter before the State's chief e\u0026lt;.il.lcation official, (the Director of the AD), or his/her - ~~  ; \u0026amp;.  :To :avail itself of tM opportunity for a hearint on the proposed provision of Direct Services : by the APE, the Chief Administrative Official of the P\\Jblic Agency must $Ubmit a written request for a hearing to the Associate Director for Special E\u0026lt;iucation within 3 O days of notice or the proposed action by the ADE. - 9.  'Within ten (lO) busines; day.s ofretQpt by the Associllte Director afa written request by the ;-pilblic agency for a huring, the ADE Director will .set a mutually agreeable dtte, time and .location for the hearing and advise the Chief Administrative Official of the Public Age'rq of this in writing. 1 -: ' I .. _ ! . io. The ADE Director, or dcsignee, will consider the evidence presented by the Chief  Administrative Official of the Public Agi:ncy and the Associate Director for Special  'Education, or designee.    11. Within ten (10) business days af completion of the hearing. the ADE Director will submit :written findinss of fact, the decision and reasons fof the ruling with regard to the provision . ; -of:Pirect Services by the ADE. in compliance with 34 CFR 300,360. ; 12. lfthe AD. determines that its action v,,ag contrary to state or fodE:ral statutes or regul:itions '.t~at govern the applicable program, the ADE shall rescind its action . . ! . : .. J'.3. Public agencies will be notitied of their right to ap.peal a decision of the ADe Director to - ;~h~old IDEA- Part B funds to \\he Secretary ofqjucation, U.S. Departm\u0026lt;:nt of'Education. 14. The public age,cy must file a notice oFthe appeal wtth the Secretary wi\\hin 20 days after the : :public agency has been ~otitied by the ADE Director of the tinaf decision of the hearing. - 1.S. 1)lc .Associate Diraotor fbr Special Education will advise the Administrator, Grants ~f!d Dara )vfanagement, in writing as to when to witlihold and when to restore IDEA -! P~ B payments to che Public Agency. ; ! t ' ' I : WhJ ~~ ADE has det~ncd that it will assu~ rhe provision of Direct Services tci ensure F APE,. the A.OE may provide special education and related scr.-ices in sucll a manner and at !Uch lo~ons (including, regional or State centers) as the ADE consideTS appropriate.  i . Public Agency Compliance: If the SEA, in accord~ with 3 4 CTR 300: 197, after reasonable ~ notide .and an opportunity. fer a hearing; finds that a public agency that na.s been determined to , I '  I 9 ' ' l '  . '. PAGE 12/16 ~ .~ld'IOl\"' I  ,. 'i :j i :, ,, . _p3t 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 ~;-21-2002 : 10: i 7. FROM:  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'\\900aS4 ' j -   , I .  i .. l;,e-digi1\u0026gt;1e under mis :scdion ~ Awl1J to com9ly 'Mth acy reqwremem d~ed in 34 cat. 300:220 -300.250, the SEA shall reduce orma:y -not ~de any iiu1her psyments to the LEA or: stz1e ageney utd tho SEA is satl!ilcd that lhe eublic agency is complying w\\th that \\ ~~  ~ p-.i,lic agency in re.a:ipt o a notice desc:n'bcd in the first pan.graph of this section shall. by ,m~ of public~ take the mea.ues necessary to~ the pe:11de:'D)' of an action punmnt w this ~on to ~ \u0026amp;ttcntion of the publle within 1he jurisdiction of~~- -~ ~ out its funaion undet this secticn, each SEA shall co~dcr urt decisiOll resu11inl fi'om a hearing \"l,Illde:-34 CF.R. 300.S07 - 300.52\u0026amp; that is adverse ta the pubiie agem;y involnd iD'tbc ~sioca. ~cies 'Will ~c ~t othia infonnariOG by i.ignu,1 pa\u0026amp;e 10  . . .  I .  :. _m'ITfICATION . I,, ,:mt UNDERSIGNED A'U'l11ORl'ZED lW'RiS!:NTATlV?, RDOY CERTll\"Y UL\\T THE APPUCANT ACENCY,S GOVERNING BODY JIAS ~OPTE~ THE ,'BOV:t ASSURANCES AND lS Aw All or u.QU!.R.!l\u0026gt; ACIIOl\"iS )Y nm SEA . UUTIVE TO DIRECT SERVICES AND POBUC J\\GENCY COMPLIANO. '. :_ .. . ~ : . .' ; ?l'tith-Little a:d. Sdl:Xll ~ \"-nd~a.d.yQuldlXd~ i.f -~  '  ; ~ '.  ! :  !\" : . i ' ; :. \\ '. . ~ t  ~! -~ . ~  . . .  I  j 10 PAGE 13/16 I-' .16l.l'112l. .. ' ' t EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ Au.dlo~oo l:ctu\u0026amp;;atiou Sen-ice ooperaeive ~ Chilclhoo4-Spctjal Edua\u0026amp;n  2001~ ~oo, Y~ . ~ ~ol districts ~ below hn-c established an ~emo:Ji urviee c:oopcratiw  a\\:!mmistra.tive mangemem flit 1hc purpose or providhla =arJy r;hildhood spc:cial cducatiai services in accordance widi Ark. Code AM. 6-41-~ and Section cSl 9 ot'mt IDEA 97. The ; ~e of this coopcr.mve is: ' '  'lt\\-otstnct .k1Y ~ Little a:a: I.EA.Number Supcrin~d=t's Signature l!tx1h LiC:la lt)dC ~ , 1 . School District : LEA# Sc:hool ])istrict LE.All Superlnt;ndcnt's Signature  Su~cniicut s Sign~  ,.   School Disuict LEA# School District LEAi Superilltcndcnt', Si~ Superiutcndent' s SignDJre.  :: 1  School Dinrict I .i  , , ; :, .,, LE.A.# .,  .  I . Superintendeat's ~ - .. '' ;  'School District I.EA# School District LEA# ; ' I  48 PAGE 14/16 P.012\"014 .I, .:' F I ;i ! ., . ' ' ! EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'1900254 Authoriation . Ednca.tiOJl Senicc C-oop~tive E:nly ChilAood Sp,dal 1?:duc:i.1io~ 2001~2 School Y c:iT   The scl\\ocl districts listed 1,elow have established u educatioa service c:aoperadve . ..  ~e ammgement fonbe purpose o!providmg early childhood specai ~an '  ::: StJ'Yic:siaacariaDcc with Ark. Code Ann. 6-41-220 and Sccticn619 otlaeIDEA97. :tnc: ' ~ ~this COQye:iative is:  . .  'B:l.-ciec:ril%. ! QJ:i.lthm ~ Little lb:!( exi:z ., , Cooperative . 11ie sigr.atum bel0w verify !his arrangement 1M mtborize \\he above named coo~ to use . : : : funds a:pproprlllted by kt 1392 of 1999 to help provide services to three through nve 'fe3r old  ( i:bildd~isab-ilities.  .:;_~ ' ; '  . Si.penmen  s Signature Su~deu't' 1 Signattn .- :~9?Jl:'i 8)-03  Schoel District Soperintendem' a Signature .. . : I ; . lEAi . 1. : I.EA# .. , .... __________ _ Saperinttndeat'i Signature '! .  .,! .I;.._. - '-----,---- -~-- .,  , ,  Scllool Distiict LEA I  i . : Sc.~ool District LEA,# ,a School D~trict School District Supetiattndent' $ Signatite School District LEA :;, Superin~s SignatuR School District LEA. ,. I . ,. ' ,,I ' i EG!U11Y PUPIL SERVICE T0:~90025-4  Authorizatioa Educado11 Senice Cocp~tive bdy Owdhood Special Edutatio lOOI-G? School Year Th:\u0026amp; ~chool districts listed below haw eatabtisbcd m educatioa. iemce eoopermve . , ., - nistrative aaangeaicmfor1he purpose of-providing early childhood special edu.ciltioti sctvictt in accordance with Ark. Code Aim. 641-220 and Section 619 of the IDEA 97. ne name af1his eoopendiVe is: ,: I 'lri~ ?arly ~ ~ Y' tt''! );xx O:,oper.dive B\u0026gt;:02 LEANambl:r The si~ below verify this arrangement a:id authorize the above :named cooperative 10 use fun~ appropriated by Al:t 1392 of 1999 to hclp provide secvi~ to 'three through five year old (?hild~ with dist   I -'i  . './ ~  I ~ bx ED-01. School Dutrict . LEA# ': ' f .Superintendent's Signatutt  ' I LEA# Superintendent's Signaiure School District LEA# ;i I ,' '  1 : S11perinteo.d.el1t'1 s~ LEA# r i i . I  i ; ' . Supcrin~cndent's Sign\u0026amp;IUre School District I.EA# Superintendent's. sign~ School Di3aic:  LEA# School Dutrict ' LEA# Sup~e:nt's Sjgnatun, School :Oisaict , , ., PAGE 16/16 j\" ;  ' i ! VVr 1\u0026lt;.Vr V...L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE STA TE OF ARKANSAS Ths Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board ofEducation, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as . the Parties. REC1TALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to tenninate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of$20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgive~ or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the State's current funding formula for public school districts, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula; WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects tRSD's per pupil revenue; Page I of 8 -,i EXHIBIT 3 VO/ 701 U..L .l.D.L1 .J..U . LlO rrt.A WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS I. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11 .8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001. 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts to attain complete unitary status and - release from court supervision. the State agrees that it will not seelc to modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3. I Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State's ability to seek modification or  termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8 ~UUJ court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or tennination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3 .2 The State agrees to cooperate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or tenninate the States' s obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: (I) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement; (2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; (3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undennines this Agreement; (4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any chaUenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. In recognition of the LRSD's efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSD's efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8 1.1:!JVV't U!\u0026gt; / ~0/U.l lllLI J. 0 . '10 r JU. as follows: 4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds in the joint escrow account estabfo;hed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the J 989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July 1, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4.3 For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete - unitary status and release from federal court supervision ~ of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 ~vvu subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of . interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4 .3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event th.is Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shaJI negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI .B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the tourt, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page S of 8 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, hut the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in fu)] force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shalf negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event stJch relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution. 6. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8 U~/ZG/U1 lHU 10:4/ t'AA - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. It is specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. AJ1 covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the '6ay of March, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 ~vvo UtS / l!l / Ul. 1.11LI .to : \u0026lt;11 rft.A ~vvo UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION H:lliligatioo~uget\\A,bi,su AG - Oacglmi\u0026gt;cll_lS_OI \u0026gt;8\"ffll'Lwpd Page 8 of 8 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 1192219941 Wll.LIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M . EI SEMAN, JR . . P. A . JOE O BELL . P. A . JAMES A BUTTRY , P. A . - EOERICK S . URSERY , P. A . CARE . DAVIS . JR . . P. A . M ES C . ClARK , JR. P. A . ,HO MA$ P. LEGGETT , P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSO N, P. A\". PAUi. B BEN HAM 111 , P. A . LARRY W BURKS , PA. A WYCKLIFF NISBET , JR, P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARR I S, P. A . J PHIi.LiP MALCOM . P.A JAMES M SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M SAXTON . P. A . J SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 , P. A . DO NALD H. BACON , P. A . WILllAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E COPLI N, P.A RICHARDO TAYLOR. P.A JOS EPH 8 HURST . J R. , P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY . PA Ci, F41STOPHER HEL LER . PA LAURA HENSI.EY SMITH . PA ROBERT S. SHAFER . P. A . WILLIAM M GRI FFIN 111 , P. A . MI CHAEi. S. MOORE , P. A . QlANE S. MACKEY . P. A . WALTER M EBEL 111, PA . KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WA00Ell. JR . PA see n J l ,),NCASTER , p A M GAYLE CORLEY . PA . ROBEAT 8 BEACH , JR . P.A J LEE 9ROWN . PA ,i.:.. ME S C BAKER . JR PA H.:.RRY A llCHT , P.A FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNE YS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO. 501 -376 -2147 June 5, 2000 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock , AR 72201 Re: Magnet Schools Memorandum of Understanding Dear Tim: SCOTT H. TUCKER, P. A. GUY Al TON WADE . P. A . PRICE C. GARONER. P. A. TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P. A . JOHN C. FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON . P. A. GREGORY O. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX , P. A . FRANC. HICKMAN , P. A . BETTY J. DEMORY. P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P. A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT OANIEL l. HERRINGTON IC. COLEMAN WESTBROOK , J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A , KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNSll 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY WILLIAM l. PAT TO N , JR . H. T . LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . Wlllf(lll'S OIIIUCT NO. 150 11 370 - 1506 I have enclosed what I hope to be a final draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Magnet Schools. draft incorporates your proposed \"insert A.\" Please let me of a This know whether this draft meets with your client's approval. CJH/bk Encl osure ... EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the \"Settlement Agreement\") between the Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas, acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs, Booker, Mann and Parkview); and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State's magnet funding obligation so that the State is required to provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4 ,065 seats; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4,065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reorganized its schools into a new configuration which includes middle schools; and WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court's approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court, in which it asserts that the State's magnet school funding obligations are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its share of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolve their differences concerning the effect of LRSD' s restructuring on the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools. THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation . ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at 5 of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD's and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended, as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE's ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. Executed this __ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: ______________ _ Tim Gauger, Its Attorney LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Christopher Heller 2  AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 6th day of February, 1999 between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCT A\"), which is represented in this case by Knight, previously agreed that the amount of the teacher pay increase for the 1998-99 school year would be related to the amount of damages recovered by LRSD from the State of Arkansas on its teacher retirement and health insurance claims; and WHEREAS, LRSD, Knight and the other Parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation case are expected to agree to a settlement of LRSD' s teacher retirement and health insurance claims which will result in an award to LRSD of an amount less than the full amount of its claims, which agreement and result is material to the validity of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That Knight agrees that LRSD teachers shall receive a 4.25% base pay increase for the 1998-99 school year and that this Agreement supersedes and replaces the following two provisions of the original agreement between LRSD and its teachers with regard to an increase in base pay for the 1998-99 school year: First, the language concerning distribution of a remedy in excess of LRSD's actual cost for teacher retirement and health insurance (paragraph 4 of the original Agreement); and second, the 4.5% base pay provision. 2. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, EXHIBIT i 5 .f - - - - -- ' 3. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 6th day of February, 1999. Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight Intervenors AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same ..  EXHIBIT / i 0 a: - monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and I 0% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall be regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 --------- I 0. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. st~eJones A)~ Attorney for NLRSD 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Trus Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 911t day of February, 1999, by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and PCSSD disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; WHEREAS, the district court's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement will likely result in a substantial payment by LRSD to PCSSD; WHEREAS, PCSSD may pursue damages from the State of Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's change from the Act 34 - funding system to the Act 917 funding system, pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That this Agreement constitutes consideration, in part, for the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 2. That LRSD's liability to PCSSD under the district court 's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement shall be capped at $450,000.00 for the 1998-99 school year and that neither district's liability to the other will exceed $400,000.00 per year for all subsequent years that the Pooling Agreement is in effect; 3. That LRSD shall receive 30% of PCSSD's damages recovered from the State of - Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's EXHIBIT 7 - change from the Act 34 funding system to the Act 91 7 funding system pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998. 4. However, in no event shall PCSSD's damages paid to LRSD pursuant to Paragraph 4 above exceed that amount of LRSD's loss in teacher retirement and health insurance damages resulting from the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas ' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 5. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, 6. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 9th day of February, 1999. 2 I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I HU18CHll N. F\"tOAT Ct82Zlt WILLIAM N. SUTTON. P.A . JAMES 1lf . MOOIIE IYaON M . US(MAN. Jfl . ,.A. JO( O. 8(LL. r . A . JOHN C. (CHOLS. r . A . JAM[S A . IUTTPtY. ,. . A . Ffl(OUUCI . UJHUIY. , .A. OSCAa ( . DAVIS. JII .  f'.A. JAM(S C . ClAtlf; . Jfl . , . A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN O[W(Y WATSON. P. A. PAUL a. l(NHAM Ill . P.A . LAJUIY W . IUfllS . P . A . A . WYCltllFF NISl(T, Jlll., r . A. JAMES EDWAlliO HAIIIIIS , P. A.. J . ,HILUP MALCOM, r .A. JAM[I M . ltMrSON, P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P .A. J . IHlrHUID flUIS(ll IU, P . A . OONALO H. IACON, P . A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT[II, r . A. IAIIIIY ( , COPLIN, P\".A. IIICHAJIO D. TAYLOII, , . A. JOS[P'H I. HUtllT, Jll ,, P.A. [UZAIETH flOll(N MUIUIAY, P .A . CHIIISTOPH(II HU. LUI , P .A. LAU\"A HENSLEY SMITH , l\" . A. ltOl(IIT S . SHAF[II, P.A. WILi.i.AM M . GJUFFfN Ill. , . A . MICHA(l S . MOOft(, ,. . A. DIAN( S . MA.Cl[Y , , . A . WALT(ft M . (au Ill , .. . ... . l(VIN 4 . CIIASS , P' . A. WtlllAM A . WADO(Ll, Jft . , r .A . John W. Walker FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLA!tK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCIC, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 June 10, 1998 VIA FAX and HAND DELIVERY JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Attorney's Fee Settlement Dear John: SCOfT J . LANCASH  . \" \"  M . OAYl( COIIIUY. r .A oauu I . l(ACH. Jlt . . ,  . J . U( ... OWN , f' . A. JAM(S C . 1141(11. J . P' . A HARRY A . UGHT . , .A . SCOTT N. lUCC(III . r . A . .JOHN ClA'flON \"ANDOll'\" P'  CUT Al TON WAO(. P .   f'l1UC( C . CA110Nl . ,.  TONIA,. JON(S. ,. A . DAVID 0. WUSON. P . A . J(FFlll('f H . MOOU. r  0AYID M . GIIAJ. P . A . CAllllA GUNN(lS S,-AINHOUfl. ,. A .IOHH C. IF(NOl(T . J . . PA . II. CMllll  TOl\"N(III LAWSON Cll(GO\"'f 0. fA'flO\" TONY L. WILCOX FIIAN C. NIClMAN l(TT'f J . 0(W0fl'f  .... A .. A J . ...... o l 'fNOA W. JONNSON JAM($ W . SMITH CllFFOO W . l'lUNl( ff OAHtll l. M(flllllNC:fON ALLISON .J . COIUtW(LL 1000  cu (LUN lot . OW(NS H(l(N( N . ATOUI .JASON I . N(NDA(N SUSANN. CHILDUIS IIIIUC[ a . TIOWUl o, covu WllLIAM J . SMITH a . S . CLAIU WILLIAM L. HT WILLIAM l. ,-AT TON. J H . 1' . lAllll[UR( . , . A . 16011 370 I 601 I will have delivered to you today a check from the Little Rock School District in the amount of $35,000.00 for attorney's fees in the school desegregation case. We have now paid you $100,000.00 based upon our expectation that we will be able to reach a complete agreement concerning past and future fees and costs in the desegregation case. In accordance with our telephone conversation today, we now have such an agreement subject to the approval of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. I expect the Board of Directors to approve our agreement at its June meeting. LRSD will make the following payments for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31, 1998. U or fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1,1,a---, 1998. - The payments described in this letter will constitute full anc complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please sign this letter l:iCI ::z: 00 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; Ill 1 It I I I I I I ,I I I I I - It I I John w. Walker June 10, 1998 Page 2 to indicate your acceptance of these terms and your willingness to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement containing these terms. Thank you for your cooperation. I will keep you advised of the progress toward approval of this agreement by the LRSD Board of Directors. The Joshua Intervenors agree to the settlement terms set forth in this letter. rney A PROF\"\":.SSIO~Al. CORPORATI0:-1 :\\TTOR..'-'EYS\"AT L~W 120J '\\J:.'CRTI;EN aANlC Bl,'U..OL'-:G LITi1..E Rea:. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 314-7100 -:-a.E:c::rl' CX'IJ n~l\u0026amp;ll :!ay 31, 1989 ~e: ~ittle ~eek School Dist=ict vs. Pulaski C~unty S?ecial School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 John W. Walker, Escr. Christopher Heller; Esq. Ste?hen W. Jones, Esq. M. Sa~uel Jones, Esq. ~ic~ard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In_ accorc.ance wi t:1 III.A. o:f the ?ulas}~i County Deseq:::-ega tion Settlenent .::..greement c-f .Ma::::-ch, l 9 8 9, we are enclosing an Arkansas DeDartment of Education ?12.n fer ~c~i toring i!uplementation of compensc.to~y educ2. t.ic:1 ~n t.he ~tree school c.istricts. The settleme!\"lt 2gree;:1e!lt does not !)rov:i.Ce :\"c::- :::..lir:c; . or -:ve\" submission of ~his document ~o the Cou::::-t a~ -;:::.:s time. :-:cwever, we are senc.ing copies to both Judge ;,oocs and Xr. ~cC~tcheon so that thev mav be aware that this re~ui=enent of t~e settlement acree~e~t has been met. We antici?ate that the enclosed olan ma'v be .nodified afte:::- :::-eceivinc .cur com.':lents 2.nc after-we learn more about the monitoring r~le ~hat will be untertaken by Eugene Reville. :rW.V:-im :Snclosure cc: The Honorable Hen=y ~ccts Sincerely yours, ALLEN !..A\\: FIF.N ~iJw_(JJJ__ H. William ,AJ,,len , ', The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. ~c~: Dr. Ru~~ Ste~le Sam Sratton, ~sa . Sharon St=ee~~, -~3~. Esa. .; 1 ~ lC EXHIBIT l l  One of the Att One for NLRSD WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS By ~~ -- M. Samuel Jones One of the Attorneys _for PCSSD ROACHELL By tJJ -=p-a--'-u-::1:--:~'-=-::-~-~------ 0ne of Knight the Attorneys for the Intervenors e - i\\RlQ.NS;l.S DEPJ..R.TMDIT OF EDUO..TIOH PULASKI COUNT'! DESZGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of ~ducation (ADE), to monitor the irople_~entation of compensatory education programs by t:he school districts in Pulaski Co~nty. The ADE defines comoensatocy educatiQ~_p.J:.agm~ as those o~qg;:_ams wnich are directed at .La,provina the ac2de:nj c r:e,..-=or:;;12:nce -0f-.bl2.ck s..t:udents whose acaaern.ic achievement bas been adversely affected  discriminatorv practices w  D...J:h.e school. Tb.e___state comoensato effects of the programs shouia:'oe it~es in eaucationa Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the ~rimary area 'for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an eauitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal a~countability to the tax payers of Arkansas. 1:-lonitoring responsibilities for ~esegregation effectiveness by necessity must permeate all elemen~s of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial progr~s- Therefore, it shall ~e the goal of the ~.DE to ?rovide extensive monitoring and eval\\!acion oi the Agreement. The primary focus of the orocess shall be a continuous assessment 0 the remedial effectiveness of ~rcgr~~s supported partially or f~lly by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School Districc vs. ?ulaski Countv Soeci2.l School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and serv~ces receiving special funding include: 1. ~pe~satory ~cucatio::i)) 2. Magnet Schools ~ 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits ~he state to: l. Direct funui~g to the districts (~ithin the limits provided in ~he Agreement) 2. Principles o~ desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement dispari~ies l ------ ------------------~ b. d. Standacdi:ed test yalidation R~~i~l bala~~e ir. ~pecial programs Minority !'ec:::-u.it:nenc a.nci employ;;ie!1t 3. Site selection c=lceria for school constructio~ or ~xpansion 4. Staff dcvelopme~c release days fer ~he t.~ree districts through _l990-l991 5. -r-... ~ni:-.y million dollars loan to Litt.le ~cc~: School Districc .:.o d~velo? programs for remediacing .a~~ievement disparities and or ~t~er programs and initiacives which facilitate desegregat.ion 6. Selection oi an a~:::-eed standardized test t.o satisfy the loan forgiveness of t.~e ~grcement ..,. .. 3. The ADE shall ~r~vicc 4egular w~it.t.~n ~cn~t.ori~g reporcs t~ t.hc ~art.ies anc tje court. Monitoring by t~e st.ac?. shall be i.idependenc of t.hat of the other parties. As a .last resor~, P.DE may petition the cou~t for modifications or changes in such programs ~eing implemenr.ed ~y ~he districts lbut ~ot fvr ~ r?.6uction in the agr~ed level of stata funding). 4. Any recommc:nca.:ic~s mci.,-:e  oy l\u0026gt;.DE shall :1oc ::or.n t.he basis of ~ny ~ccitior.~l f~nc.ing responsi~il:-::i2s 0f .:h~ _state. Jl.lthongh, i:'!.e .!..DC: rnoni::.;):!\":.:,g shall be inc..~?e?;dc:1c :::)= .::iat of t':le other par~ies, the dis~=:.c~s are advised to cs.:ablish an internal monitoring pla=-i. ~he ;:nr;-ose sha.ll be to det.e=mine anc. document:. that: \\. Th~ desegrega.:ion plan ~as, or is ce~~; implemented on a timely b.;sis, 2. Inequities do no.: exisc and/or do n~r recur; and 3. J\u0026gt;.11 ~tuden.:s a-:e afforc.ed an equi-::a::,le educa-=.ion. 2 L.. !.;CN 1 TOiUHG ~he monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitaticns, review ~ plans, review of statistical and administrative data as we11  as percep~ual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monito_ring ' isits should provide evidence that the school $lte is representative of the pl~ralistic nature of the Air,erican Society. Monitoring tcc:.ms shall be selected by the Director, Arkansas Department 0 Education (]illE), General Division. Tbe teams shall include ;h.DE personnel and may include others as designa-c.ed by the Director. Monitoring visits shall be contl~cted acco~a~ng to a scnedule ~stablishcd by -che i\\DE. The mor1i taring process shall include anno11nced and unannounced visits. Monitors sholl record ~vents and conditions during sit~ visits. Monitors shall observe and report f ind.ings only.  E:ach district shall include in the six-year plan and unxwal school improvement: plans appropriate objectives to c1chieve .;,.:impliance with each court orde:r rela.ted to the Agrcem\u0026lt;::nt.. The ADshall monitor the  si:;;:-vec:1.r olans and :i.nnua.i school improvement pLrns t0 de:t~r~ine progress towa!:d cchieving educational equi tY. District plans should prov-ide evid.ence of ~ompliacce ~ith court aiders and a process to ascertain progress. 'The AD'E shall identify relevant daca necessary to formulc::.te conclusions and recommendations. ~ata should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and requlaticns are developed and implemented to facilitate de$egrega,:ion. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achieve~ent disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence ~hat student assignments to schools, clc::.sses and prc:\u0026gt;grams at each organi:::at:ional level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the ~greement are used to facilitate the desegregation process . . 5. Evidenc~ that travel time to and =~cm schools is ~ot disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black scudents transportea =or desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe.~entage of non-black students transported for desegreg~tion. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the ne-=ds of a diverse student pop11lation . 7. Evidence of intern~l procedures for ensuring thr-t materials for appraising or counseling s~udents are non-discriminatoty. 8. Evidenc~ that cur~icular content ~na'instructio~al strategies arc utilized to meet: the diverse ne2ds of the student population serv~a. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and :i~signed in a 1nanner to meet ~he goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that nroce~u~es related to cxtracurricula and ;::o,:urricula 3.ccivit.ies are develooed and imolemented t.o identify and eli~inate =onditions.that resuit ir. participation th~t is dispr.oportionate to the studen~ population. 11. Evidence of aiverse representation on appointed dist.r.i.ct\\.Jic.e nnd school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to .ensure that oaicnt attendance at :.;chool function:~ 1::; not ,11.::proporti~nate t\".o the student population.  l). EJiden,::e of- succ~s:; relate:! to Hajority to Minor:..;:y ~-~a.tts!ars . ;_ 11. Evidence that magnet: schools are an eifective interdis~rict remed.t fo~ racial balance. The collection of data shall include ~t le~st the following: A. Enrol~nent/Attendance 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional prog 1:a.ms. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, .:ransported, nontransporced and instructional program fo~ each magnet scnool. ) . Numbe . .r. of non promotes by race, gender, grace, sch.ool, ::eacher, transported. and. n0nt.ranspor~ed.. B. Test Data Arr:ans;:..s Ninirr.um Performance Tesc results by race, gender, grade, school and :;ocioeconomic status {SES). N:umber of eighth graders failing to axcain 1nast.ery after the first, second and third ad.ministration of test. by race, gend~r, SES and school. Nwnbe= 0 eighth graders th2. t: are non promotes f _or failir.g ;:o at.tain mastery aft.er thi:::-d adrni:1istration of test ~y race, gender, SES and schoql. 14. Metr0politan ~chievement Test - 6th Editiun or other . national normed tests ~s may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race , gender~ grade, school, s~s and teacher. ~S .. ~umber of llth and 12th graders b~ race, gender, ~chool ~na guidance counselor who t~ke the PSAT, S~T or ACT. C:. St:aft , 1. Number of Full TimP- Equivalent lF.T.E.) classroom t1:acl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experien~e. 2. Number of ?.T.E. school-based aaminiscrators by job category, r2.ce, gender1 school, ye2.rs oi experience. 3. Nun\\b~r of F.T.E. counselors by race, g~nder, school, years ct CX?erience.  5 - -'\\ . 5_ 6 . 7 . 8. Numher of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E- librarians oy race, gender, school, years of experience. Numb~r of F.T.E. department heads by race , . gender, school, yea.rs of experience. Nt1mber of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience_ N'..llnber of =.T . E. cent~al offic~ positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. D- Policy and Program Infonnation 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities_ 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings ~nd special state funded programs including: ::'I.. Ma.gnet Schools h. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 0  - ~   M - - -  3. Student assignment policies, rules ~nd regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Libr~~Y Usage g_ Student Records S.  Copies of current negotiated agreements with all e~ployee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by .funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 6 .. 2. Transportat:i on cost: and funding sour,ce. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory ~ducacion Program cost 5. Magnet school cost: F. Student Discipline 1. ..liW.IlP_er of discipl~D~ .. r .ef err.als _ by __ !,\u0026gt;chool and teacher repbri~d by ra~i.- gender, grade, subject and  teachers' ye:;.rs cf experience; .. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, ~ s_~ces, district ... c:3,I).Q. _ building ~rship, speclal s~ate funded programs and educational equity summarizeci.b~ace, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. ii. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade lev~l, by sending and receiving district. /' ~alysis of data _shall be __ conduct.ed by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated. by the ADE director, Additional data may be required of the c.istricts, a$ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring repor-.s. A schedule . for submitting the data shall be established by the Jl..DE - Si!1ce the moni torir1g is ~assi ,:e anci. e~~ompassir:.g, the A.DC: shall establishmonitoring priorities as. follows: 1. Programs and se~vices supported by special state. desegregation funding incluqing. compensatory educa~ion, magnet schools, majcri ty to minority transfers and related.transpor-.ation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation icient~fied as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 -. / ;t,onitoring activities shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistanc~ Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a Learn of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one team member will be an education professional from the }I.DE. The Equity Assistance Center may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring actiJi ties. P.EPORTING The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the . Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on February 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or - nearest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs end services receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. P11laski Countv Special School Dis~rict 1 et al . , No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financi2.l and program information. * The _ADE Desegregation \u0026gt;.ssistance Te~n s~all provide ~ech~i~al . assistance atid suzoort as necessary to implement monitoring ana ..,reporting respor_isibili ties. Current team members are: Administration Student Services Emma Bass Brenda l1a.tthews Sterling Ingram ~1argie Po.vell Robert Shaver Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Blizabeth Gaston Incentive Schools Carolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Early Childhood TBA curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Special Education Diane Sydoriak Benny Abraham Staff Develoomcnt c-aylc T2al Jackie Dec.man .:.taff 1'.t.tornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean i-lcEnt:.ire - - --- - -- Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. The districts have agreed not to hire teachers under contract with another district from one month before the start of a school year through the end of the school year unless the position at the hiring district is considered a promotion. EXHIBIT /j Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCT A regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. The LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association have agreed that a teaching position that becomes vacant after the first student-contact day will be filled with an intern teacher whose teaching contract will not be renewed at the end of the school year. At that time, the position will be listed as vacant and filled consistent with District policy and the PN Agreement. The intern teacher may apply for the position, but he or she is not entitled to any preference in hiring. -.. EXHIBIT 1 i IC \\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. PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED APR . -2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. It has reviewed the proposed submission of the LRSD and believes the LRSD has adequately described those items that are responsive to the Court's March1, 2002, Order. 2. Item 3 of the LRSD response is a copy of its agreement with the State. The PCSSD wishes to note that the only parties to this agreement are the State and LRSD. PCSSD was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement, is not a party to it and does not believe the agreement has any legal effect upon the PCSSD. Further, the PCSSD does not believe that said agreement could operate to affect or diminish or curtail in any manner those sums and payments which the State is obligated to pay to or on behalf of the PCSSD for the desegregation and other financial programs described within it. 327291-v1 3. Finally, a discrete section of the May 1988 \"Joshua Agreement\" retains vitality. It addresses student balance goals in the PCSSD and is referred to in each of the ODM monitoring reports concerning racial balance. The operative language is quoted by the Court of Appeals as follows: \"However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1378, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990). 327291-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~..-=--:--f-..;..:_-:-:-:---:::-::~-:-:--+----ci a I 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 1, 2002, 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 327291-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., I ntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR .- 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NLRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 In its Order of March 1, 2002, the Court directed the parties to identify and submit copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case. The Little Rock School District has shared its list of agreements as contained in the LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as required by Order filed March 1, 2002, with the NLRSD. The NLRSD agrees that the agreements listed by the LRSD are in fact agreements among some or all of the parties. The NLRSD is not aware of any additional agreements. Therefore, the NLRSD adopts the Notice of Filing Agreements as its own. However, the NLRSD notes that it was not a party to Item #3, Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: Unitary Status, Sale of Bond and $20 million loan. Therefore, while the NLRSD agrees that this Agreement exists, it reserves its right to object to the legitimacy and/or scope of that Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P. A. 425 W. Capitol 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Si:WA)~ Stephen W. Jqnes (No. 78-083) I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons via U. S. Mail on this 1st day of April, 2002. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Bank of America Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 _......, ~\u0026lt;GW~ ephen W. Jones // RECEIVED APR - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING p= ;; ~ '''-=\"' I\"\"'' 1;= J l1 k= 4 1 a ~--=bl-.II U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARMl'1SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl~SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. :rv.tRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. _l,l\\MES W. McCORMACK CL:: :-;: .r- ' -,' --------~ PLAINTIB'F c.: - -~ DEFENDANTS JNTER VENO RS JNTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1. 2002 On March 1, 2002, the Court required the parties to identify any agreements, formal or informal, that existed between the parties. Joshua responds as follows: 1. Joshua Intervenors would be involved in monitoring activities involving plan implementation regarding the three districts. The Districts agreed to cooperate and otherwise facilitate Joshua monitoring. 2. Joshua was to be involved in Little Rock and Pulaski County with the selection of principals for certain schools; devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and were to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to either of the school boards for final action. 3. The parties were to cooperate in identifying programs, policies, and procedures which actually either worked or did not work to achieve expected goals of the settlement agreements and, where necessary, to either build upon such programs or to discard them and replace them with programs which had greater probability of success. 4. The districts were to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The State Department of Education, though relieved as a party, was expected to comply with the requirements of the Allen letter. The State Department was also expected not to forgive the Little Rock School District loan of 20 million dollars without the remediation goals set forth in the Consent Decree having been achieved. 6. There was a scholarship commitment imposed upon Little Rock schools, formerly - identified as Incentive Schools, which guaranteed every student of those schools who graduated from a Little Rock high school with a \"C\" average college tuition. 7. The State Department ofEducation and the parties were required to identify legislation and other state actions which had discriminatory impact upon black students. The State of Arkansas agreed to discontinue and to prevent continuation of those practices. 8. The agreement entered into between the Pulaski County School District and the Joshua Intervenors known as the Joshua Agreement. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors had hoped to continue their discussions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in seeking to identify other possible agreements but due to the absence of ODM Moniror, :Wlrs. Ann S. Marshall, we are unable to have that input before the filing deadline. Joshua, therefore, requests leave of court to supplement the foregoing understandings after Mrs. Marshall returns to her office. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing filing h counsel of record via United States mail on this 1st day of Ap  , 20 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN W,~~~1, c;_TT COURT \" ARl\u0026lt;~ NSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 3 Z002 , ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * JAMES Vi   fi , v. /Vi c 1...~li ACK, CLERK Qv , _ ,~ DEP.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR -5 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER The Joshua Intervenors' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status is GRANTED. Responses to the LRSD motion are due on or bef;:;ursday, April 18, 2002. DATED thid _ _ day of April, 2002. TATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~ 11;~ A~~/0 79(a) FRCP 589 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL v1 (),At:u l 1t i. f/4_ RECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to the Joshua Intervenors' Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002 states: 1. The LRSD admits that it contemplated that Joshua would monitoring the LRSD's implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). The LRSD also admits that it agreed to \"cooperate or otherwise facilitate\" Joshua monitoring to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 8.2 and 8.3 and with the agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 regarding past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring, attached as Exhibit 8 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Joshua's April 1, 2002 filing. 2. The LRSD denies that it agreed that Joshua was to be involved in the selection of principals for certain schools; the devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and was to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. 3. The LRSD admits that it agreed to \"cooperate\" with Joshua in identifying programs, policies and procedures which worked or did not work to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 2.7.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 4. The LRSD denies that it agreed to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The LRSD admits that the \"Allen letter\" represents an agreement among all the parties to this case. See Exhibit 11 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. The LRSD denies that there was an agreement not to forgive the $20 million loan to the LRSD from the State pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, it was not contemplated at the time the 1989 Settlement Agreement was negotiated that the LRSD would ever have to repay the $20 million loan from the State. 6. The LRSD admits that it agreed to provide scholarships to the extent consistent with-Revised Plan 5.8. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 6 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 7. The LRSD admits that the 1989 Settlement Agreement required the State to \"research and list\" laws that impede desegregation and obligated other parties to assist the State 2 in identifying existing or proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. See 1989 Settlement Agreement,  IILD. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 7 ofJoshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 8. The LRSD takes no position with regard to the \"Joshua Agreement\" identified in Paragraph 8 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:------,4-'li\"L,C--l_.__;_i~~~~~':L...:......- 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 17, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Offi~e of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 9NIHOllNOW NOllY93H93S3a ~o 3~1:1:fO ZOOZ 6 1 ~d\\f RECEIVED APR 1 9 2002 OFACEOF FILED U.S. DISTRICT GOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS . APR 1 8 2002  a3Al303t:t DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~ ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. :tvIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Interveno~, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker; -P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. In accordance with the Court's orders ofJanuary 25, 2002 and February 12, 2002, Joshua and the LRSD have engaged in settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status. The parties agree that additional time is needed to continue these discussions. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. 3. Neither party will be prejudiced by the court granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including May 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) \\! , '' l ', , ~, By~d-    / . (, JJo n W. Walk.e r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 1 t 11 day of April ,, 002.  Jk,_\u0026lt;j( i V\"' 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 APR 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its Response to those paragraphs of Joshua's filing which relate to it state: 1. Admits that it knew that Joshua would seek to engage in monitoring activities, but denies that Joshua has engaged in appropriate monitoring activities. 2. Denies that Joshua was to be involved with the selection of principals, denies that Joshua was to be involved in administrative plans, but acknowledges that Joshua has a role to play as respecting programs, policies and procedures as set forth in Plan 2000. 3. Admits that a role for Joshua is set forth in Plan 2000 regarding programs, policies and procedures regarding educational achievement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 as phrased, but acknowledges that Joshua is enterprising in its efforts to obtain information from the PCSSD. 5. 333093-v1 Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 6. Admits that a portion of the Joshua Agreement retains vitality as respects student assignment in the PCSSD. 7. Denies the remaining allegations contained in Joshua's submission. 333093-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 --- -- c--::J:-  ~ .,,.. r,, By J) I --\u0026lt; / ;  \\'- ) '-----' M. Samuel Jones Ill (76,,060) Attorneys for Pulaski-e\"ounty Special School Distr-ict ......._ ___ -- -.. - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 25, 2002, 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 333093-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette 0. Honorable 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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 M. Samuel Jones Ill (___) J . 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC-EIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: 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 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 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 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, 2002 ~tttizit~~~;tA~~wltgt~~S'.~~g1iiil~il.~if~r~1,~1111,~,~-ftdl~-t~'aHhe 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.    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_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","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":["2002-03-15"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"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/1723"],"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":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a 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 abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"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","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"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/1743"],"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":["14 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Education- just discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to \"provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future.\" In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for \"readiness,\" the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This \"Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District\" builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001 , the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01 . Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from , but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test-not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to nonblack student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation . Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks' difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on \"the improvement of the academic achievement of African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined-the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on \"findings\" or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. The District's statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level. Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewed-especially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineguality, which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the program's quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each school's results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the  determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 1-28-020120 4 Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writer's ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which \"readiness\" standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plan's design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section Vis a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. \"PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan,\" \"Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01,\" and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the District's 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed from the same research base on early literacy; they differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31 ). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.      Shared reading . Guided reading . Familiar reading . Modeled writing or shared writing . Interactive writing . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan: Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Se_ction 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2. 7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize \"designed to improve ... the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" rather than to \"remediate\" that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools' School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following: Teachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of wellintentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid that \"there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4.\" Therefore, as the child continues to experience \"failure and defeat,\" he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I she states that \"supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years\" (326). She concludes: Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students' self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures frequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. .. . instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01 .) The second section from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of learning-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and grov.1h of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements--the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The third section (5.2 .1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's program. 'A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned . A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cuniculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the District's general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card.     Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance Report in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000 . An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous\"' (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is summary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"readiness to read.\" (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 1-28-020130 14 he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The child's performance is scored by counting the child's representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skillsprimarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of \"readiness\" for success at the next grade level. Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. \"Proficient\" is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading \"levels\" of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define \"proficient\" performance. To gauge which \"level\" is equivalent to how Arkansas defines \"proficiency,\" the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sett ing is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficultv. The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several states and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing \"proficiency levels\" developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that \"On Grade Level\" is defined by a kindergarten student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. The State of Ohio defined \"Success Indicators\" for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy:  At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words.  By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization.  By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as \"substantially deficient.\" Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress-similar to the District's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition of \"proficiency\" that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination, District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term \"Readiness\" to define the desired performance. When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004, then the staff can do some statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, \"the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers' ongoing observations of student progress over time within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from various parts of the United States and Canada participated. (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA .. The findings were that both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct validity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read\" (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instruction-for the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not reliable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks ... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing\" (20). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test. The lower correlation values of the  Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test. Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each child's answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students' performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The staff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teaching-one approach fits all-the opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, AP A, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole from year to year. With the AL Ts, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports cannot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the AL Ts, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring learning-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council, (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the report's recommendations for early learners:       Prekindergarten: Preschool programs .. . should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, \"sight\" recognition of frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge 1-28-020142 26    in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    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_1734","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', LRSD motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status, and statement of material facts not in dispute","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":["2002-02/2002-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', LRSD motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status, and statement of material facts not in dispute"],"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/1734"],"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":"District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, statement of material facts not in dispute submitted in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURfSTf:fW ';'STR'~T /\\ 0 \"\"\"\" 1SAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1/  2002 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W, fvicCLl  1 ' K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER Bv:=-- ......... ~~-- 01:P.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW ;Y There will be a telephone conference at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February U , 2002. Lawyers for all parties should be available to participate. DATED this 10th day of February, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH ~LE 58 AND/OR ~yep ON ~fJ.l/0 ~ BY_..!.-~~4:---~~-- 5 7 02/13/2002 14:26 5016045137 USDC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PAGE 01/02 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) asked to mediate the issue of unitary status of the LRSD. I granted that request. During a telephone conference held on February 12, 2002, the State of Arkansas (State) and the Knight Intervenors (Knight) asked to be included in those mediation discussions. In response to this request, the Joshua lntervenors suggested that initial discussions take place between LRSD and Joshua, and that other parties be brought in only ifLRSD and Joshua come to a tentative agreement. Lawyers for all parties understand, of course, that any agreement between LRSD and Joshua would be binding only on those two parties, and that any agreement is subject to Court approval. 02/1 3/ 2002 14:26 50160451 37 USDC PAGE 02/02 With those limits in mind, I will permit LRSD and Joshua to pursue settlement discussions between themselves. If those two parties reach agreement, and if that agreement materially affects any other party in the case, then that party would then be brought in to the settlement talks. For the present, however, LRSD and Joshua may proceed with settlement talks without the presence of lawyers for other parties in the case. Counsel for Knight orally asked that the Knight Motion to Compel PCS SD Compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (Discipline) (docket entry# 3526) be held in abeyance. That oral motion is GRANTED. I will decide Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site (docket entry # 3562) on or before Friday, February 22, 2002. Any additional briefs or information on this motion should be fil~/tore 2:00 p.m,, Wednesday, February 12, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this } '},} day of February, 2002. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATIIERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 WRW t-'AGE 02 The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has moved for approval of a middle school site (docket entry# 3562). Specifically PCSSD, \"seeks a determination by this Court that Plan 200 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of the Town of Maumelle.\" The Joshua Intervenors oppose the motion on two grounds: first, that there is no justification for a new school anywhere in Pulaski County at this time; and second, that PCS SD is, in truth, requesting an advisory opinion from the Court. Of course, advisory opinions are not permissible in these circumstances. (They are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation.) It is undeTstatem.ent to say that this Court is not writing on a blank slate in this case. The case was filed almost twenty years ago, and the opinions of the Court of Appeals, as well as the - - -------- - - - U.J.LI\\.,, various agreements of the parties are binding, not only the parties, but upon this Court. PCSSD's - current desegregation plan, Pulaski County Special School District Plan 2000 (Plan 2000), was approved March 20, 2000. It is, thus, Plan 2000 which not only guides, but controls. Plan 2000 states, in pertinent part: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSD shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools).\" PCSSD Plan 2000H(2). PCSSD concedes that it has not done required planning for a Maumelle school, but rather is waiting to \"[obtain] the Court's views upon the matter [of whether Plan 2000 pennits construction of a new school within Maumelle town limits) .. .. \" PCS SD directly asks this Court: \"May (the PCSSD] explore and ultimately propose to this Court a middle school site located within the city limits of Maumelle'?\" I am inclined to agree with the Joshua Intervenors that what PCSSD seeks is an advisory opinion on the suitability of a yet-to-be-selected site for a new middle school. The PCS SD is, of course, free to \"explore\" and \"propose\" construction of a new school in Maumelle, or anywhere else. I fmd nothing in Plan 2000 which categorically rules out a school within Maumelle town limits. On the other hand, court approval of a specific site at this stage would be inappropriate. The query posed is theoretical, and does not go to an actual controversy before this Court. I will consider a t 2 r-1-\\Ut:. t:Jq motion for approval of a new school site when the issue is ripe; that is, after the PCS SD has done - the study, consultation, and analysis required by Plan 2000 and prior court orders. 1 Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of a Middle School Site is denied without prejudice; it is not yet ripe for decision. DATED this ___,r-''--- day of February, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1PCSSD's memorandum in support of its motion specifically notes that as of December 13, 2001 , \"[the] PCSSD has not yet consulted the administrations of the Little Rock and North Little Rock School Districts, the PCSSD has not yet submitted a proposed site to its bi-racial committee for consideration, no specific site has been finalized and no recent public meetings have been held in the Maumelle and Oak Grove Communities, the District has yet to form a site selection bi-racial committee which include(sJ representative of the LRSD, the NLRSD and the Joshua Intervenors, and the [Office of Desegregation Monitoring] has not yet been specifically consulted concerning a specific site.\" On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, cowisel for the PCSSD notified the Court that since the Motion for Approval was filed, the PCSSD has conducted community forums in Maumelle and in the Crystal Hill area. 3 Fax 3 f- J - 01 07) lo ; HrVJJ ~ , u/)/41 fri ; )~ ~ ~ -- a J:JuJv ~ ~ {),,,___~ 3/tq /o-z- . PAGE 01 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2002 - OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE 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. NOTICE OF FILING DEFENDANTS r~ ~ In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for February, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Genera 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on February 28, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person( s) at the address( es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2002 ~~~~~1~7i~i~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~\\~g~j~;~~t~~~~~g~~~hJ.$f~~t~icip't~t~aiiM~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR - t 2002 JA~ES W. McCO~~K .By. ~K vs. * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * 1vfRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED MAR - 4 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING In preparing for hearings in this case, it would help me - and perhaps the parties as well - to have copies of all agreements related to this case which any party believes to be binding ( either on that party or on another party). I have studied the desegregation plans of the school districts, and previous court orders, but there may be other agreements or understandings between or among various parties which affect the resolution of this case. It is important that we all proceed on the same premises, and that all parties understand the obligations and promises of all other parties in the case. Within thirty days of the date of this order, each party must submit to me complete copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case, - whether previously filed or not, which touch on matters relating to the desegregation plans of any 577 - of the three school districts in this case. This is required regardless of the number of parties to an agreement. By \"parties,\" I mean: Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, State of Arkansas, Joshua Intervenors, and Knight Intervenors. \"Relating to desegregation plans\" includes, but is not limited to, issues surrounding unitary status. If an agreement or understanding relating to desegregation plans has not yet been reduced to writing, but a party believes that it is ( or may be) binding on another party, then all material terms of that agreement or understanding must be summarized in writing and submitted to me. This Order pertains to agreements between or among the parties (and not, for example, a contract with a bus company). Obviously, I already have copies of court-approved desegregation plans, so it is not necessary to include the plans themselves in your submissions. Collective bargaining agreements (and individual contracts between teachers and school districts) are exempt - from this Order, at least for the time being. If there are agreements that a party or parties believe are not covered by this Order, a fair, accurate, and brief summary of those agreements must be submitted along with the copies of the agreements which are produced. I s~ DA TED this ~-___ day of March, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/O~P ON 311\\0~ BY-~------ 2 ' le ' I ' I ' ' I ,e I I --I I .. I I :- ~-.- :-::.- -- -~ ;::;: u.fJLEo '  EASTERN ol~r~;gT COURT - T ARKANSAS MARO 1 2002 ~::MES W. McCORMACK . , CLERK 2001-02 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Melissa R. Guldin Associate Monitor March 1, 2002 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager ' 1 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS ; INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan 11, which provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a 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. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic ~-~-l;rievement ( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. - WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) B ===~~~~~~~~~ Christopher 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 ..L..---::--:- B Y: t:::::;;~~~~~~~~~ 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ 3 --- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for March, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen r 1 323 Center Street, Suite 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on March 26, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the followingperson(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan .  - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 29, 2002 ll\u0026IJ.il1f.illf illl1l~ll$.if.llii;1;,1~?jrlli;111~~\\f ,9 rnt~tf;JfiJ 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. RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2002 OFACE OF , DESEGREGATION MONITORING ~- ,_,,\u003c~ ., - - . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'Ol:JR'L  - -  ,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS --------.. WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Jv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 4r:~= INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. Due to counsel's previous commitments, the unexpected filing of the Plaintiff, the pending requirements imposed upon the parties by the Court and the length and substance of said motion, Joshua needs the requested time in order to prepare a response thereto. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including April 18, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Wallcer, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little R9i::k, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via Ullited States mail poitage prepai~~  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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_330","title":"Compliance court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2002/2006"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/330"],"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":["347 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n6: da vvu \u0026gt; John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS December 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY  8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Emul: mcheni'yd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Room 24.329 RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002 Re: 02-3867 Little Rock School District V . Joshua Intervenors OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Gans, This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal earlier for counsel's use in the District Court. had been prepared Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' statement of issues letter. is attached to this cc Chris Keller (LRSD) other counsel of record in the District Court Appeal No. Q2-3867 Little Rock School Dist. V . Joshua Intervenors date Joshua Intervenors' Designation of the Record (1.) docket entries for the period from January 1, 1998 to (2.) Exhibits 543 to 872 (end of list} (all exhibits are marked court exhibits) (3. ) Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (As Revised September 18, 1989) (4.) Joshua Opposition to Little Rock Compliance Report, 6-25- 01 (5. ) Order, 8-20-01 (6. ) Order 10-3-01 (7. ) Response by LRSD, 10-5-01 (8.) Order, 10-17-01 (item 3521) (9. ) Order, 11-13-01 (10.) Order, 11-13-Oi (11.) Order, 12-12-01 (12.) LRSD, Motion, Memorandum, and Statement of Facts Not in Dispute, 3-15-02 (13.) Order, 5-7-02 (14.) Order, 5-9-02 (15.) Order, 5-15-02 (16.) Joshua Intervenors' Opposition, 5-30-02 (17.) Order, 9-12-02 (18.) Order, 10-11-02 (19.) Order, 11-12-02(20.) Jotice of Appeal, 11-12-02 (21.) transcripts Substantive Hearings 7-5-01 7-6-01 8-1-01 8-2-01 11-19-01 11-20-01 7-22-02 7-23-02 7-24-02 Hearings on Procedural Matters 6-29-01 7-9-01 8-17-01 11-13-01 12-11-01 (22.) The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 9-13-02 and Order 10-11-02Appeal No. 02-3867 Little Rock School Dist. Joshua Intervenors V . Joshua Intervenors' Designation of Issues (1.) whether some of the District Court's findings of substantial compliance with the Revised Plan were induced by legal error in construing the Plan? (2. ) whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding student discipline, steps to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students, participation in extracurricular activities and advanced and enriched courses, guidance and counseling services, and plan compliance at Central High School? (3.) whether the Revised Plan required that the LRSD show progress in eliminating the racial achievement gap in order to establish substantial compliance with the Plan? (4.) whether in the course of assessing the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan the District Court failed to employ monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in the manner required by this Court in 1990? (5.) whether the District Court erred in holding the Joshua Intervenors to the requirement that they exhaust the Plan compliance remedies before they could contend that the LRSD did not substantially comply with a requirement of the Plan? (6.) whether the District Court erred in imposing anevidentiary burden on the Joshua Intervenors regarding the Joshua monitoring activities prior to March 15, 2001? Ir\"' received JAN 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 ^n W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received JAN 29 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS January 28, 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. P.A. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rock, Ark.ws.^ 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcheiiiyd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South IO* Street - Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans: This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal were prepared earlier for counsels use in the District Court. Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues f Appellant) Joshua Intervenors statement of issues is attached to this letter ,, --Sincerely I John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nChris Heller Other Counsel of Record Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of the Record (1) LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-22-87 (2) LRSD Brief In Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-24-87 (3) Letter from William R. Wilson, Jr. to Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9-8-87 (4) Response of the Honorable Henry Woods, United Sates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5) Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (6) Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (7) Order, 11-12-02 (8) Motion for Recusal of District Judge and for Vacating of Orders, Ruling and Judgments, 11-25-02 (9) Memorandum from Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr. to Counsel, 11-26-02 (10) [LRSDs] Plaintiff s Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion for Vacating of Orders and Recusal, 11 -26-02 (11) Order, 12-20-02Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of Issues (I) Whether the District Court erred by holding that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(2) did not require its recusal, in the light of his honor earlier appearance in the case as counsel while in private practice? (2) Whether the District Court erred by holding that it was not required to vacate the orders, opinions and judgments entered subsequent to its receiving this reassignment?United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-1147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. Alexa Armstrong\nKarlos Armstrong\nKhayyam Davis\nAlvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Lorene Joshua\nLeslie Joshua\nStacy Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSarah Facen\nDerrick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylor\nRobert Willingham\nand Tonya Willingham, Appellants. ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED -3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 7 Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. !This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors' appeal from the District Court's^ denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In IS Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992)\nUnited States y. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (Sth Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilsons representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case. and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2)\nthus, 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\n(1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nand (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\nthus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II. ., we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 'This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in appeal. 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the m n, A -.1_________  Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Floachell 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Samuel Jones, III 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway LittIWIock, AR 72206 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr^S^hnis Hansen 1^1 Ce^r Street, Suite 1200 Llle Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLittle Rock School Districi 4:82CV00866 . Pul jTounty Special School, et al. Dear Counsel: As you know the September 11, lemorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligations under 2.7.1 on or 15 fien, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days (until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This missive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. Cordially, Wm, R, Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NOS. 02-3867 03-1147 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS CiA cuIuIl. received MAR -7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLEE DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adjustments to the other element's of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as follows: Joshua Intervenors lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension.Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jmxn W~Walker, ARBar No. 64046 /OHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent bv fax and U.S. Mail, postage GdayofJIW^,2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Ai'kansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas hhn W.^Walker(2^-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received MAR 1\n2004 desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13,2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had I substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSDs Board of Directors (Board) adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Courts Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25,2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshuas concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\n(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\nand (4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation IL- R1 set forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2,7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through I i Page 3 of 6a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant\nDenrus Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Courts Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any questions or concerns about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs A and B of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. I Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2OM---------- BYT Christopher Heller Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004\nMr. 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 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 I Christodner Heller I Page 6 of 6 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (im-IPM) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOE D. BELL P.A JAMES A 8UTTRY. P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM IIL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKUFF NISBET. JR. P.A IAMBS EDWARD HARJUS. P.A I. PKILUP MALCOM. P.A 'AMES M. SIMPSON. P.A AMES U. SAXTON. P.A . SHEPHERD RUSSELL IIL P A. XJNALD H. BACON. P.A VILUAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A LICHARD D. 1A.YLOK. P.A OSBPH B. HURST, JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.^ CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A MICHAELS. MOORE. P,A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. KEVIN CRASS. P.A WILLIAM A. WADDELL JR. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C BAJCER JJL. P.A HARRY LIOHT. Pu SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A  UY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. ORAF. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfinn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 342S MORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703*4811 TELEPHONE 470-895-2011 FAX 470-895-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C. FINDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN EUZABETH CONICUO. P.A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L CHILDERS K COLEMAN WESTBROOK JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL . KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH r. MCKA'f ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halbert SARAH M. COTTON PfflUP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MnCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN P. PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OP COUNKL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L PATTON. JR H.T. f JOHN C ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER October 25,2002 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL SOI*370-3323 FAX 981.244-334*1 landlayQfac.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Cqjitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: In our letter dated October 11,2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing myperceived deficiency m the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21 9? October^ 1 n onno ^^^sed that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walkers October In ^2?? October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn. - EXHIBIT AAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementatfed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ..., which are to be subjected to comprehensive program evaluation. . Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ scaffolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted------ some assurance that the comprehensive evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. program LI^D RESPONSfr On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division ofinstructions Plan P^gSchools,acopy ofwhichis enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct cumculum, instruction and classroom management audits at lowperfor^g schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be proi^am evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, includine used by a implementation of interventions such n * Tr. - - ---------------------- as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this lx,-. --------ivDUluvcb LU uiipicnieni uus plm at every^hool Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. to a iscussion pnor to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to mdicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not ^equate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation S^ey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the f evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Courts remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considermg toe PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the omphmce Remedy. Attached are toe comments received by toe LRSD from Dr. Ross related that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise toe LRSD that toe evaluation , sense for toe LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares to was of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. anew, comprehensive evaluation iAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 3 3. ^eLRSDdiscussionaboutsatisIyingthecourtsorderregardingtheevaluationsmentioned h comphance report does not seem to take account of e material provided wninh OT\u0026gt; -.-.I__J.'___  which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this completing the evaluations identified on statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manngr District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy^ the it said it did and complete the evaluations program evaluations as most prudent use of its limited true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the iXTvrAfri^ to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations' of programs desi^edto improve Afiican-Amencan achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the therefore, the LRSD schedule. court has identified and, S'\" between the LRSD Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion and not prejudice Joshuas appeal of October 24. 2002 Facsimile I I 1 I 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be data. In the past, LRSD has used results on given to the quality of e the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways ^-twithtepurposesofthoseinsmunen^^ ^res fothen- oto students, the past use made of the data was in conflict withthe dislticfs ^oS  R=8ulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest\" must be use all available data in its evaluations. . . . .. ^^^^^^P^gP^^^^ComplianceRemedyrequirestheLRSDtoiva:\nava\niauic m Its It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliabilitv and ahdity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education ZZis .O dcennme whete smdenm are learning dre essential T curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those LRSD monitored student scores assessments, the to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort success of the LRSDs early literacy program willAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 4 be judged by performance on the States Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA Observation Surveys. 2. and We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for prep^g evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of mterest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert wiU have these roles. Of course if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD Program Evaluation personnel cannot be trusted to wnte an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement IS second to none. To fulfiU that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate ite progr^s.. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State s Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members wiU be actively mvolved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one teammember. The evaluation team WiU decide who writes the report basedon the expertise team members will be actively of te^ members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not bemg addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example ^d has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance IS below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because . :so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory class members are performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. the whose A satisfactory description by e School Board of the evaluations which i, requires tire sufflo uud^e shortir^rZ mrplementation o(rentediatiort activities in district schools is to receive This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy careful consideration. Standards, para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE\nAs the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number ?eZS ftere^ ** incorporates itsAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed partcularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite not simply for the penod necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was to be term, not limited to the term of the Compliance LL aner tne term nt the ' IL after the of Compliance Remedy, Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua: o address aU of Joshuas concerns. If any party has y questions a^ut Ae LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted m wntmg, and the LRSD will nmmntlv _________ j\u0026gt;uuuuiiea writing, promptly provide a written response. LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8- to Revised Plan  8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John 'endley, cc\nDr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)Elementary Literacy PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary LiteracyTeam Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Mehnda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Wilhams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi DavisDirector of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Speciahst Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eumce Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa CleayerTeam Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction I Marcelhne Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator EXHIBITProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4* Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 -----------1 reveals that students geometry strand. (Note-Tne State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense. geon^try, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item rankmg the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. w^^^ O! the low performance on geometry items \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the \u0026gt; specific geometry items (the released items were O- available for review). Develop strategies for mcreasing the focus on geometry in the elementary TTlnPm2)tlPC cnmnnbfTM mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4 Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that demographic^ly similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the cumculum was different from school to school. Schools with a mgner level of implementation were having higher student achievement man schools who were not imnlementino- tbp ('iirrienhim ot t i__i were implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to and sustained training to serve as receive intensive Support Personnel for LRSD). a coach for other teachers (See list of Math  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly coaches training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg much of It directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing elementary mathematics curriculum. our Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement schools was to begin a -------among process ofchanging the way professional development for ....  o J p* wxwwoiwxxttl Ul/ V VlUUlilCIll IO_ teachers is stmctured. In the past most professional development for elementary ma\u0026amp;ematics has-been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led trai^gon theS grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been shift more focus on site-based professional development. The Lesson Study and Study Group approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs to to - exhibit2002-03  pie same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4* grade Benchmark Data. Tu analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry Tn6 InUZAcf ___________V-VJV..______J The lowest strands were probability and statistics, XXXV, XU,.,,, audiius were proDaoility and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on ose strands on the Benchmark Exam, ^e cumculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted m low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determme the big ideas or concepts students need to have a deen nnHrfitanHiT,n . - concepts students need to have a deep understanding about m ^ades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade ^11 do siimlar work during the summer of2004. Curriculum resources in grades were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the cumculum at certain grade levels. Maril^ Bums and Associates materials, and other materials compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Internet resources, were identified and Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. * Program modifications based on this data were\n\u0026gt; Developed packets of open-response items for teachers students. \u0026gt; Trained teachers to on the to use with score open-response items using a rubric. i --------------CLXLlL/llV. \u0026gt; Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter semester exams that included open-response items. or end-of- 4 grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three ye^s caused some schools to be given School Improvement status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, Afidcan-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1 not Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. * i detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process) Ihe schools that were audited were Fair Park. Baseline.  Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary^ Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings. One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made las to brmg in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannelauthor of HighlyEffective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, school conference. pre-  Item analyses of the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. s  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probabihty by added a replacement unit on probability fi-om Marilyn Bumss materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Bums materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. * Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support AuditsChicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4 Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum.Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 6*, 8*, Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001 . end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus Uistnct-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 calculator training provided for aU secondary math teachers * \u0026amp;r stazdards-based inabucdon/materiala in nndh teachers -02  District leveraged support of professional development for all math ux piuicbsionai aeveiopment for aU math teachers bv ^vrdmg funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers rec^ trainings  ^ad teach^ continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the assroom by conductmg professional development workshops observations\nand classroom devd^n Umversity of Arkansas ac Litdc Rock develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District The followmg course was developed and offered during the 2001 o Stratcsies for Tftflr.hino- at Little Rock (UALR) to Strategies Teaching Geometry -02 SY: distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathem Atics (---------'  courses courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer ahgnment with the national and state standards  The SMART (Summer Mathematii and fiameworks\nICS Sl^T, IS a Saturday academy for students currently enroUed in Algebra I These progr^ sr. ahgned wi the State Goals for Algebra I. ^Xl EQC \"ho participate in these programs are companaJ with if overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work exams. Teachers on modifications in sturhed to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom SS? in all high odlUOlS o are 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doinv presentations on standards-based activities  JST\" \u0026lt; high 1 Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were train eH  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6 grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for aU secondary mkth teachers on topics mcluding: o o Riverdeep Interactive Software TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\nContinued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom  used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6 Wo^hop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\nth -8  Continued end-of-quarter tests\n, th ' f X to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa CleaverFY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation Elementary Literacy Department continued n-wvidv p. literacy, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. to provide professional development (ELLA, to support implementation of the Ihnnk examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most m need of assistance m the area of literacv with nartiniUr ____ of ^simnce in the area of literacy with particular attention to the academic achievement of Aft can Amencan students and their needs. The data indicated that the writinn program was the weak component of the literacy instructional ~ Department provided staff development related to writing instruction. program. The Elementary Literacy - and the writing programs in schools were modified to include best practices. Ihe Spring 2003 CRT L^'a schools reflected the schools efforts to improve their students academic achievement in writing The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the oppo^mty to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies Twelw cJhon ?? n  Project to begin in the fall of2003. The project requi^s the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement.^Because of lack of movement m smdent ^j-vem^t ,ools on school improvement decided to move 1 program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. with the an from the Success for All FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by folln^ina developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following\ngroups for each of the professional development ^LLA EflFeimve Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success programs develop a table of the most and least effective elements. for All) and The information fi-om the XU A M, , . ------------------------------------ wawxxxwxxLQ. A lie lluul uiauon iToin rne focus groups will then be used to modify the Districts professional development plan Compare student data from the CRT and District asscssr/.v.\n. h. .aJ ' African-American students with others as related to the instru^onal program and provide specific professional development based Identified needs of the students. assessments in each school to compare on the EXHIBIT JX_T^e staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development\n Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small groun instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule (except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Willies met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Rftnnnmflrir hyqtti o++an+i/\u0026gt;n j___i____v _ . Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American , , ---------- - J students \u0026amp;s compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. ^e Elernentaiy Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using It to make program modifications or changes. After the consultants visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the pnncipal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. on the Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Llteracv DenartmAnt chmilrl in^lnzlA kAntp*. ____ Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on addition to the professional development being offered content area reading and writing. In on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, T?! T  -------------- uaois LU Lcduiicis Hraaes z-h the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5\"* grade teachers to integrate readmg and social studies mstruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) bv the LSRD Readmg First Coor^ator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. J^e purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Momtoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand 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\nand second and third grade students-------- ' -------  were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in Tannary 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly Afncan Amencan, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it w determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the low- performing schools\nphonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide nmtAccinntjl *____1_______wnwv professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation to response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of Writing On Demand and Constructed Response \u0026gt;9I f. 4 Technical Assistance Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools id^ified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the instruction during the 2 /a hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study.  Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs fi-om the following Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing areas\nStrategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers organrring and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both  group modehng instmcUonal approaches, demonstrating the use of materials ^^ssing students and developmg mstmctional plans. Professional books, independent reading are als^^^^^ organizational materials and center supplies use of materials, employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. iProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 2001-2002 1. 2. English faculty of each school 3. All building assistant principals at middle school program in order to provide for more------  were inserviced by director in literacv XXX tu proviae lor more consistent supervision and coordination hv including all administrators in literacy program. coordination by 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all miHriix. i * i  with n 1 ,  ' -----------utcu Liaiu Dee Bench, consultant fi-om Denver Coalition of Business to lead staff development during s..n,n, Education was employed md instiuction^ Four weeks of training took place with tochers' an four core subjects m attendance. This summer of02 for teachers to modify reading strategies (approximately 75) fi-om 2002-2003 . Evaluation of current practice and able to consistently dXw quSty pro^^^^eTX\"^ for writing in order to be focus on optimum results were goals Spring - Summer 02 N w ^nd Committee of teachers for curriculum development\nBrenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofiier, McClellan High School morning sessions to introduce 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions tn introH,, b^sX for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to SoX basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall 02. of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on theA 4. 5. 6. mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker Strategies developed to practice and teach these skills. English office and distributed to ever, mid   noMcation of literacy program in tenns of test preparat  nexTstfJ^ \"7'^ comprehension for older riders next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer literacy coaches m high school was determined and, a .co ' ' three lowest performing high schools , based on ACTAAP ) Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify umculum producing an to all English teachers pnor to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School were to every middle school to evaluate 02-03. (Need for as a result, three are now in place to revise English Curriculum: Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program s effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners, these students as a result. Summer 03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for instruction strategies for secondary students. Materials were purchased for one week of further training in reading 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list. Associate Superintendent director met to discuss literacy program at low perfonning middle school and plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high! ' ' discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness nf ^eater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September03 and to write school principals separately to at 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice princpal ,0 evaluate literacy progratp and dtscuss focus achievemf*nt thrnimk IfaroA,,_______  j\u0026gt;tLiucni achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate -- t--------iUlU COIJ improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. on strategies for August-October03. Five meetings held, 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school recent performances on SAT 9 and ACTAAP and teacher by teacher - for to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools03.6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for midHU cnho i ev^te successes and denote areas needing imptovS''X\"S SREB consultant meetmg with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. 03. In response to data, sessions have been held open-ended responses. Teachers have made to at most schools with some or all of faculty in many modifications to classroom instruction xi_ . . , . ------*Ax**xxj ixivuiiiuiiuuns co Classroom mstmrtn on the expenential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric * thr^S intervention for lowest performing ninth andlighth graders at high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school intervention for sixth and seventh as well. uses same tafoimafion and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and kev admimsfrators on reading intervention with proposals for c ' 11. All middle schools have committed expansion of program in 04-05 to a day long mservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. 2. 3. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress Attention to bo\u0026amp; lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions Calendars are ahgned and coordinated at these meetings. Director and Middle School Specialist of literacy program strategies and progress, meet after school visits to evaluate implementation  ,, . , - content and to determine plans for improvement especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly at least --------------------O -viwixvo. rr tCM y ai icaSt. Director commumcates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildmgs with principals and teachers. prooiems in 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in new teachers to improve implementation preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies dep'anment  1 PartSn?tr^ practice framing to assist in reading in social studies content. /. Participation in faculty meetings by director and implementation across curriculum. responses. department in providing specialist to modify program 8. tacrease efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June Ml   SpriSoM\" \"S\" EtSlisIt teachers 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, ioou commumcate openly about the literacy programs. These middle school and high school. These meetings ----- cumculum iteiK, special evenu, new developments, and reminders teachers from the distnct office as well as collaboration----------------------- issues, celebrations, and to meetings are separate for serve as a means of communicatingSecondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACTAAP open-ended responses and T_ _____________T7_1.___ r M rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops . Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program January, 2004 j f   Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the ReadAVrite Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated\nLRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all pro^am evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.1. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. on 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval\nExtended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLT), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: Christopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 14, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \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 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 e. istopher F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001Vdes-unitary-Marchl 5-2003.wpd 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 : exhibit I 5 I AB. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the aimual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (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\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n2. 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\n3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (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\n4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afncan- American students?. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4The District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7* after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afncan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afncan-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1covered by IL-R2, However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4, Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be completed by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows\nExtended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. B it 1, Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis 7\"UtetiSBiK\" 7. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). J, Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bormie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Boimie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley 81^. TrLviitiiYTT* ir ...... 15. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price 9'! ISnicalirc-    I W3J\nj I fOTjstihTPf.i \u0026amp;' I 21. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 23. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15,2004 10 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance Team1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness : exhibit 32 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. B. C. D. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to Afiican American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly xmlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside fi-om the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/021 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Overnight Delivery OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.AX (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd@swbell.net March 20^ 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Ills. lO'h St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: received MAR 2 0 J003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORING Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Special School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.. Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al.. Intervenors\nAppeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rales. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of RecordB IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 fl fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received 20 2003 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. a a a Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 aN IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received M PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS MAR 20 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING fl KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I R Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 RI IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 n OFFICE OF I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS DESEGREGATION MONITORING KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 I I John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900nrr,, :? ^OHi1 JUMI '1 W WHLKt-K H H NO.097 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iiwS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION APR Ma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W, MeCORMACK, GLERK Byx_________ PLAINTffiP]P-?RX V. LR-C-82~866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. intervenors KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Paoe lae \"Evaluations\" The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the *[LRSD] Notice of Filing Rrogran Evaluations Required by Paragraph C o the Court's Compliance Remedy and the accompanying \"evaluations. This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Prograrn Evaluation [at ISO].\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 7   ' improve the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7 actually worked to I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students\ntor. without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. [At ISO] The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 1 JUHII JUHM W WHLKLH P a HO.097 P.3 addxe\u0026amp;Bed in part program evaluations identified in page 148 of on each of the programs 171] The court discuseed the the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 17O, completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, after their approval by the LRSD school board. 2003, [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs ia^lemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" are to be submitted on or before March 15, [^t 170] These materials 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to exiting court supervision. govern the LRSD's substantially comply with the C^cxally important obligations contained i,, ==.... vr with regard to th^ in Sec. 2.7.1, it section of the Revised Plan Gntil it\" fa BTooram asBeeftmonf- .flJ- tnat a ^flgram aesessment nrocedure is in oTaoe program implemented under wSCt 417 inIraprovino_achievemn* .i.7 in improving the academic American students\n\" ntfAPan Hrt^. lo. i::k3t3^ n The LRSD \"Notice of Piling\" describes the LRSD's plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluationfs]\" as follows\n. District will prepare the followinq nen Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and (C] K-12 Mathematics and Science, ach evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Ri and will incorporate all available st^ent assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District before March 15. 2004. [Exhibit A at S] student Court on or Joshua Interveners have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2NO.097 p.4 Show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can of each program implemented accurately meaaure the effectiveness under Sec. in improving the I H 2.1 academic achievement of African-American students\"  it will have to be by a future submission, were either not evaluations, In general, the documents submitted or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy [vol. 1-2]' Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD i^ve read. [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses . . - [Id-] Dr. Ross* critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" [At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (Pl) index. [At 3 ] \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between B and KB students. . . The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4] \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do ngx have low ceilings  Writing Vocabulary and DRA  Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction [e.g.. the Growth see p. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places.\" [At 5] \"The present data are , This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel a^d Mrs. Marshall of QDM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 25, 2002. 3. C.VJCJO r?* ozwi i. jut-in w wHL_r.t.K r h NO.097 p.5 suggestive of definite xU. students' literacy performance. early progress made by lrsd in improving e^e also indicators some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. of However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very ceiling levels, the overall evidence low conveys. There is is weaker than this report no reason to reduce the findings by presenting them credibility of the [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that with such an obvious positive bias. and impacts on the school and Charter schog-[ [Vol. 1-2} \"Performance data for examine implementation quality the classroom.\" [At 8] the program evaluation were disaggregated by African American. not race. The student body, however, was 87 percent N [Vol. 1-2 at 1\nDr. Lesley] Southwest Middle school's smni. Program [Vol. The \"evaluation\" documents produced by 1-2] the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain of the program implemented at Southwest Middle achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] neither a detailed description School, nor student C\u0026lt;? 1 labor at ive Action Plan [Vol, 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD's short-term [one year) in the project would not predict that the involvement this relatively small of parents and community vo)ynte^rs would result in improved student performance. Dr, Lesley] N [Vol. 1-2 at 528\n4 I. C-WtJO 3  COMI'I JUMU W whlklh h h HO.097 P.6 Bctended Year Schools [Vol. Vol. 4] \"Unfortunately, the present evaluation sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that design does not seem might be attributable . to BYE. Specifically, usage of whole^school data compared descriptively to district examination of the schools' norms gives only progress. a very surface with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc.\" [Exh, B at 5\nDr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732\nDr. Lesley\nsee also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Imnlementatien [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline'. and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870\nDr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911\nYouth Policy Research 5 MtiHi'i JUI-iri W WHLK.t.K h' H NO.097 ' P.7 Group\u0026lt; Inc.] Elementary Summar SehonT [Vol. 3] There is a lack of implementation data to describe the i program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" [Eh. B at 3\nDr. Ross] \"unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered. how and when it was delivered. and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. at \"] \"No adequate control group or norms . . [Vol. at -J (By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc.] Hippy [Vol. 3] \"A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively. is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which Hippy program components were actually used. [Eh. B at 4\nOr. Ross] M \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554\nDr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed. ... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [vol. 3 at 1567\nDr. Ross] 6 -ttJMI I J s-'ni W H NO.097 p.8 gamPUS T.\u0026lt;adez-Rh\u0026lt;o T)ms [Vol. 3] consist of only . However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date results from two district-wide assessed team nenbers surveys that reactions to various information exists to activities. No the validity of verify the representatives of the samples t the data collection in implementation of the CLTs Dr. Ross] general, or the at the various schools.\" [Eh. B at S\n\"These surveys were not intended although they to he a program evaluation., Vere mistaKenly characterized as District's Compliance such in the report to the court. data were collected, and, therefore, No student performance no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the improved academic achievement African American students. campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in for any students, nor specifically H [Vol. 3 at 1256\nwas no formal evaluation Dr. Lesley] of CLT by the LRSD.\" [vol. at 1259\nDr. Ross] Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 3 4] \"Approximately one-half of the students small participating in this program (8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this had any positive benefit on the academic performance program of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607\n(inadequate description of treatment Dr. Lesley\nsee also at 1635 provided students in program\n7\u0026lt;1 jurrn w WHUKt-K k h NO.097 P.9 Dr. Ross)] Qnwara to Exceiieneg fvoi. 3] The program \"was never formally evaluated. achievement data except for reports sent by the principal to ADE.\" As \"i iaplejnentation data are lacking, It n if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause. [Eh. B at 4\n\"In view of these factors, Dr, Ross] is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217\nDr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] ^Drthar, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a h brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived.\" [Eh- B at 3\nDr. Ross] There is [iInsufficient description of the program and its N implementation.* There is a \"[l]ack of pre-program (pretest).data for judging change following program completion.\" \"Mo examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity).\" [Vol.3 at 1542\nDr. Ross] 8 1 i_?  CJMl I J 1 w wHL-\\c.r\u0026lt; H NO.097 P.10 sonciueion The need for high quality evaluations, court supervision, is clear. if XJISD IS to exit Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862'-1S55 Mass. 405900 'J in W. Iker John w. Walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Ricky Micks Attorney at Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 9 jvmi w wHLrLr r H NO.097 P. 11 CERTmCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadi pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this day of has been mailed, postage ohn W, Walker IMrr,, 1^. iiukUO cJtJHI'i JUm W WHLKLK H W \" NO. 097------P. 1 JOHN IV WALKIR, P.A. 7 Date: Attorney at Law 1723 Broadwey Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [JJ(mduixni sheet)] PACE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential i^onnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tlus message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immec^w not^ us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via atcomey privileged and confidential the U.S. Postal Service. Tliank yoi lU-BN district AW\" EAST^NOist^' IBAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.ygsW. WESTERN DIVISION _____ APR 15 2W MCCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy.\" [Mem. Opin. , September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Intervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case. the accompanying memorandum. and evidence (including expert ^This two year period of time will afford the^LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with t'he remedy/ and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled by the court. (esmectfu y suj^itted, Robert Pressman Ro: 'W. Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 fe^key Hicks YJohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 o Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw N7\\ACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 2 JCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of April, 2004 by placing on I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served all counsel of record on this IS*^ a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3s filed district court eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ADD 1 5 gflfli EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_____________________________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD   must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years . This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1supervision. This court wrote: . I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make that the programs under 2.7 actually worked to improve sure the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African American students\nfor, 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\nemphasis in original] . . . . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it identify and improve those programs that are most effective to in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Reouisite Assessments and Evaluations (1. ) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 through 14, the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . . [\"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin., at 170\nsee also id. at 168] (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations. T1 [Mem. 2Opin. at 156\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_325","title":"Compliance court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2002/2006"],"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","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/325"],"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":["200 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nC. 1 F!^ JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 FILED U.S. DIS FRICT COURT EASTERN DISIRICI ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES W. McCORfviAGK. CLERK By\n. September 23, 2002 i-OE-COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. LR-C- 82-866 received SEP 2 4 2002 desegregation MOMnOBlMB Dear Judge Wilson: Today we filed a motion for reconsideration. We found several errors in it and wish to correct them. We are hand delivering a substituted Motion for Reconsideration to the Court. The substitute motion does not alter or modify the substance of the motion filed today. It has been hand delivered to Judge Ray, the Little Rock School District counsel, the ODM and other counsel. Sincerely, -\u0026lt;fohn W. Walker f JWW:js Enclosure- Motion for Reconsideration cc: United States District Court Clerk All Counsel of RecordRECEIVED SEP 2 4 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT y. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1,ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL filed eastern^', SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES w. McCormack, CLERK Dtp CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider the following findings of fact and conclusions of law which it has reached. In making this request, Joshua has been time limited because of the exceeding length of the Courts Opinion and the fact that the Court has sought to address issues that were not the subject of the evidentiary presentation for which the Joshua Intervenors had the burden of proof. Joshua notes that the subject of the hearings, as determined by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then presiding Judge of this case, was for Joshua to present the areas of its greatest strength from among the various objections which Joshua had made to the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. The Court did not indicate that she would allow Joshua to present evidence on matters other than those which were the subject of the hearing before the Court. We make this notation because the successor Court Judge, the Honorable William R. Wilson, has faulted Joshua for not presenting evidence beyond the issues on which evidence was taken. Joshua also notes that there was no issue that Joshua assumed the 1burden of proof upon with respect to Joshuas obligations and undertaking with respect to compliance. Joshua had no power to impose any particular compliance upon the school district. Furthermore, Judge Wright made it clear that the agreement between the State of Arkansas with respect to the loan forgiveness of the $20 million dollars which was loaned by the Arkansas Department of Education to the Little Rock School District was not to be the subject of these hearings. Her reasoning was that the matter was premature because all the parties to that agreement were not before the Court, Joshua had not signed off upon it and that it had nothing to do with whether or not Little Rock had substantially complied with meeting the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which the parties agreed upon in January of 1998. The Court has also addressed the issue of the involvement of the ODM with respect to the issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson. The competence of the ODM, quality of the ODM: reports, the budget of the ODM and the relationship between ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Those matters had nothing to do with Joshuas burden of proof in demonstrating that the LRSD had not substantially complied with the obligation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Nor was the issue of overall counsel fees with respect to the duration of the litigation and the payments to lawyers, and the public perception of those fees a matter of evidence to be considered when Judge Wright formulated the issues. The issue of attorneys fees has no relevance to the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations. The Court, Judge Wilson, has recited history regarding his perception of the fee event and made assumptions regarding those matters. In due respect to the Court, the assumptions are not valid and represent a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the 21 role of lawyers in this long standing case. The Joshua Intervenors were not informed at the time that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable William R. Wilson of the Courts negative attitude toward lawyers who were involved with and associated with this case. While Judge Wright may have had such attitudes, they were not expressed and do not form the basis for any judicial ruling. The attitude of the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods was well known. He disapproved of certain payments to certain counsel, i.e., counsel for Joshua and the legion of predecessor and associate counsel who were involved in this case when it was first filed as Aaron V. Cooper in 1956. I The parties are entitled, we submit, to have facts found upon the record which means a record which is developed in open Court. The fee issue is particularly sensitive because the Court has proceeded to make assumptions regarding fees and costs. In doing so, the principal erroneous finding is that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Joshua requests that the Court either delete its references to payments to counsel or afford the issue to be revisited in a manner which establishes the fact and does not further cloud public perception, a point to which the Court appears most sensitive. The Court also seems to disregard the role of Joshua because the Court makes no reference to how Joshua became involved in this case in the first place and why it was necessary for the school district to seek an interdistrict remedy in the first place. Those matters were not before the Court and we submit should be excised from the Courts Opinion. It is important to note that the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods refused to allow the Joshua Intervenors to intervene in the first place. It was His ruling that the Black plaintiffs did not need their own advocate or representative because the Court would protect the interests of the Black J Lchildren. That position was overturned by the Court of Appeals and from that point on, Joshua has been the real plaintiff seeking to validate and protect the Constitutional rights of African American children which the LRSD set out to accomplish through counsel who have since been discharged.^ With those points in the foreground and in context, Joshua respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its lengthy Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002 with respect to issues which were not before the Court or for which the Court may have made mistakes. 1. On page 2, the Court indicates that the Settlement Agreements of 1989 were to be implemented under the supervision of. . . the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe the terminology to be inappropriate because Judge Wright never entered an Order determining the ODM to be the supervisor of any district. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ODM ever performed in that role. 2. As stated preliminarily. Judge Wright required Joshua to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their strongest grounds for challenging the school districts request for release from Court supervision. The Court did not afford LRSD the opportunity to establish its case because the burden of proof rested with the Joshua Intervenors. Accordingly, Joshua requests that any facts that were found beyond the submitted grounds identified as subject areas for evidentiary hearings should be excised. In this respect, there was no burden imposed upon Joshua to demonstrate its own actions or conduct and no party requested that Joshua make such a demonstration. Moreover, the Agreement did not call for such a demonstration. The record will reflect that the District hired Philip Kaplan, P.A. Hollingsworth, Janet Pulliam and their associates to pursue the interdistrict litigation which resulted in the 1989 Settlement Agreement but which Settlement Agreement was reached without those counsel. 43 The Court notes on page 7 the role of Judge Wright with respect to Her supervision of this overall case. The Court omits, however, reference to the fact that the LRSD filed a motion seeking to have Judge Wright recused from the case. Although she reflised to recuse, her withdrawal made the recusal issues moot for purposes of appeal. The Court appears to have adopted LRSDs reasoning set forth in its motion for recusal when it addresses the role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe that is inappropriate, with all deference to the Court, and we believe that it tends to denigrate the significance of Judge Wrights work in seeking to implement through use of the ODM the dictates of the 8\"' Circuit. 4. When the ground rules were set by Judge Wright, she indicated that the Joshua Intervenors should present nonciimulative evidence regarding the areas which Joshua most strongly regarded from the among the many areas to which it objected. Page 7, footnote 12. By ruling that cumulative evidence would be disallowed, the Court narrowed the hearing time and the presentation of evidence. The focus of the Court was upon brevity and substance. The successor Court agreed to follow the procedure set forth by Judge Wright. 5. In footnote 15, page 9, the Court notes that this action was filed on November 30, 1982, but it later gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since that time. Joshua requests that the Court, if it must address the history at all again, acknowledge that Joshua did not participate before the Honorable Henry Woods in the liability phase of the case as it is now styled and it only intervened at the remedy stage in 1987. Although this matter is not the subject of the evidentiary hearings, the Court may make this correction by reference to the docket entries and by reference to the Court of Appeals Decision which allowed Joshua to intervene for purposes of remedy. Joshua further notes that the 1989 Settlement Agreement 5effectively merged the captioned case with, inter alia, Clark v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Clark was the continuation of Aaron v. Cooper. Accordingly, this is a 46 year old case rather than a 20 year old case because the liability rulings of Clark remained and because, despite the beliefs of the late Judge Bill Overton, there was never a determination that the LRSD had achieved unitary status. 6. In footnote 30, page 16, the Court indicates that the claims for relief and remedies differed from those being sought in Oark. Joshua requests that the Court clarify those differences for as Joshua reads Judge Woods later Opinion, Judge Woods, himself, found the school districts to be faulted for both interdistrict and intradistrict violations of the rights of African American children and he determined that consolidation with a resulting desegregation plan for the consolidated district would be necessary. Judge Woods appointment of Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon is not mentioned. Mr, McCutcheon made findings during the remedial process that the districts were continuing to implement their policies by engaging in practices which tended to discriminate against African American school children. We believe that if history is to be written it cannot be fair unless the myriad hearings and other developments before Mr. McCutcheon are placed into perspective Mr. McCutcheon is a necessary connection to legacy of Judge Henry Woods who the Court acknowledges to be the Courts mentor. 7. In footnote 47, pages 26 and 27, the Court makes reference to the evolution of the ODM and its budget. That matter was not before the Court. While Judge Wrights approval of the ODM budget is a matter of public record, we believe the Court may wish to excise these figures because they are inaccurate. Joshua is aware that the ODM budget was never fully spent. Joshua submits that the Court may wish to readdress this issue also because Judge Wright 6approved the budgets and the manner in which Your Honor treats the budget seems to be at least an implicit criticism of Judge Wrights actions and of the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place. We submit that the ODM and its budget are not fair issues for the instant proceedings and that the Courts attitude regarding the merits of plaintiff s objections may be clouded by the belief expressed that too much money has been spent on the professional group. In making the request tor the reconsideration on this point, we note that all of the governmental parties have resisted in one form or another the ODM activities. We also note that the Court may be signaling that it wants to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the 8\" Circuit. There is no evidentiary basis for doing that or for allowing that inference to publicly flow. On many occasions, Judge Wright commended the ODM work as being useful, helpful and even important in helping the districts achieve desegregation goals. 8. On page 38, the Court notes that on December 27, 1996, Judge Wright held that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring. We have searched the record and do not find that she ever lifted that Order. Accordingly, LRSD has not been monitored as contemplated since 1997. Instead, it has been in advisory position to the LRSD. The Court has to also note with reference to the budget of ODM which it set forth on page 27 that monitoring for LRSD when done by the ODM, a 35% cost for LRSD, would have been approximately $250,000 per year. There surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was to take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year, a point the Court refers to at least five times. (Pages 39, 42, 43, 88 and 90). 9. On page 38, the Court heads a discussion the perplexing final resolution of Joshuas 7request for still more attorneys fees from LRSD Joshua requests the Court excise this section for several reasons. First, it indicates a bias or hostility toward Joshua counsel. Second, it implies\nests that the terms of the Settlement were not made collusion between the lawyers. Third, it suggi known to Judge Wright, a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Fourth, it complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties. The Court criticizes an Agreement without evidence about, or without inquiring into, it. The implication that LRSD and Joshua entered into an attorney client relationship suggests professional misconduct on the part of the attorneys. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that for the monthly amount of $4,000+ Joshuas counsel agreed to undertake all the monitoring aspects, including the ODMs role, of LRSDs implementation of the plan. The Court takes issue with Joshua counsels approved 1997 hourly rate of $250. Nonetheless, counsel has been awarded even greater fees than that as was His Honor awarded greater fees while in private practice. Surely, the Court understood that Joshua did more than 16 hours per month in monitoring this case. There is no record to establish this fact, however, and if it is important for public perception or otherwise, Joshua is prepared to demonstrate the hundreds of meetings held with school district officials during the three year period\nnumerous meetings with the ODM\npublic confrontations during monitoring occasions where Joshua counsel were threatened with arrest and where because of the persistence and vigor of Joshuas monitoring, the district revised its policies. We, therefore, believe that it is important for the Court to address the issue by hearing, affording appropriate and reasonable time for developing the issues, or, that the matter be removed from the Courts Opinion because it is based only upon speculation and conjecture. Joshua notes here that the process requires lawyers. For instance, Steve Jones, representing the NLRSD and Sam Jones representing the PCSSD basically 8sat in Court throughout these proceedings and were paid fees and costs while Joshua counsel have not been paid a dime. But the process affords the districts the right of counsel and the districts have had no reluctance in paying their counsel on a contemporaneous basis and they are not held to public or Court contempt for being paid. .In page footnote 58, the Court guesses that all attorneys have been paid at least $8 million dollars. A guess is inappropriate for a Court, we submit, when the facts are more easily ascertainable and the facts establish that the payment for Joshua in 1990 represented payments for 34 years of work and costs during that time. There is no estimate for the amounts which the districts paid their counsel to forestall desegregation before 1990. On the other hand, this issue has already been addressed and we submit has no place in this Opinion because it does not contribute to the issues which the Court heard. Undersigned counsel Walker does not accept the Courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. On the other hand, the three districts have received almost one billion dollars from the State of Arkansas since 1990 because of the various actions undertaken by counsel. Careful inquiry by the Court would disclose that the annual desegregation amounts from the State to the three school districts is in the range of $50 million or more per year. Were this a contingent fee case, plaintiffs counsel would have indeed benefitted. 10. The Court makes reference on page 46 to the achievement disparity goals approved by the Court of Appeals as being unreachable citing the testimony of Drs. Walburg and Armor which was given in 1996. That testimony came after the original Settlement Agreement in 1989 and then preceded the 1998 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, whatever views Walburg, Armor and even Judge Wright had about the elimination of the achievement gap, the parties 9agreed to address it in the manner set forth in the Plan. The Courts comments regarding Walburg and Armor are inapposite to the hearing which the Court held and should play no part in the Courts ruling. 11. On pages 47 and 48, the Court refers to the failure of objection by the ODM and Joshua to the Interim Compliance Report. There is no record basis for this, i.e., no witness testified to this effect and there is no evidence that Joshua was silent at any time. The only evidence is that Joshua was continually involved and seeking to be involved in the devisation of policies and procedures and was continually meeting with district officials regarding compliance issues. See Court Exhibits 553 through 569. 12. On page 48, the Court chastises ODM for its report of disciplinary sanctions which was filed on June 14, 2000. The report was made to Judge Wright before she relinquished her jurisdiction and before the March 15 report seeking release from Court supervision was filed by LRSD. She was aware and there are many cites in the record to reflect that ODM presented its report in such a way as to inform the district of the facts it found and to make recommendations regarding those facts within the context of discussions which followed subsequent to the submissions of the reports. Had Judge Wright found criticism with the ODM reports, we believe the Court was obliged to share those criticisms with the parties prior to LRSD having filed its report seeking relief from Court supervision. See pages 48 through 50. On page 49, the Court acknowledges that the March 15 report of the school district failed to adequately address the disproportionality of African American student discipline. The report is not evidence, as Mr. Chris Heller acknowledged. This failure by itself demonstrates that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection or release at the time the report was made. If the data 10 were not available and were not presented there would be no basis for an objection from Joshua regarding the matter. ODM should not be faulted, nor should Joshua, for failing to object to data which did not exist at the time. 13. On pages 52 through 54, the Court notes that Joshua did not present evidence or arguments that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing. The Court had previously instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence. The Court now states that Joshuas failure to present any of that evidence requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. Joshua finds it incongruent for them not to be allowed to present any evidence on certain matters and upon compliance with a no evidence presentation then receive a finding that they abandoned their position. Surely, the Court will not hold it against Joshua when it did not present evidence that the Court refused to let in in the first place. 14. On page 58, the Court appears to chastise Joshua counsel for never raising a compliance issue under Section 8.2 of the Plan. The Plan did not require Joshua to raise the specific compliance issue in order for them to oppose release from Court supervision. Furthermore, as pointed out above, there was no place in this hearing on the issues as formulated for this issue to be addressed. Furthermore, there is much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. See Court Exhibits 553-569. 15. The Court interprets footnote 2 of the Revised Plan (Opinion page 60) as not being the intention of the parties to have the remediation goal fully achieved within three years. 11Joshuas evidence did not say that it did. For Joshuas evidence was that certain goals were to have been frilly met while others would be ongoing. Surely, the goal of remediation of achievement disparities would be ongoing but elimination of disparities in discipline need not be, for example. The Court makes an assumption regarding the reason for this footnote. There is no basis for the assumption from the record. 16. In footnote 67, page 60, the Court seems to be uncomfortable with the practicality of the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities. Judge Wright also had some discomfort with that goal as previously noted but the achievement goals were agreed to and. contrary to the opinion of the Court, they must be implemented. The question is not whether they should have been agreed to by the LRSD, for they were, but whether they must deliver on those goals or promises. There is a presumption that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. Twelve years after the money began to flow and between one half billion and a billion dollars more spent in this district than which otherwise would have been spent, the achievement disparities remain. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the substantial monies expended were not used for the purpose of remediating achievement disparities between African American and white students The beneficiaries of the monies have primarily been white students who have seen their achievement rise in ways to cause the gap to remain if not increase between and their still less fortunate brethren. 17. Beginning on page 63, the Court makes an analysis regarding the Green factors. We submit that the Green factors do not apply to this Settlement Agreement and that those factors should be excised. The Court takes the position that LRSD went beyond what it was required to do and voluntarily assumed desegregation obligations. We submit that these were 12 not voluntarily entered into, they were the result of negotiation brought about by the strength of the Joshua litigation position They constitute benefits to the class of minority children which were bargained for by their counsel. The district was not doing the children a favor\nrather, it was meeting an obligation which has been unaddressed during the 46 years of this litigation. 18. On page 72, the Court emphasizes that LRSD has never been adjudicated to be a constitutional violator. We ask that the Court reconsider that position if for no other reason than that the settlement did not address fault. The Court discusses Judge Overtons Opinion and makes reference to the appellates decision affirming Judge Overton at 705 F.2d 265. The Court of Appeals approved Judge Overtons Decision because the Plan before the Court represented the school boards attempt to temporarily reorganize attendance patterns while the school board pursued longer ranged plans to ensure an integrated school system citing this case. In other words, had this case not been filed, the Court of Appeals Decision arguably would have been otherwise. On page 74, the Court noted that LRSD operated under the 1990 Settlement Plan for 8 years,  a long time. The Court fails to note that during that long time Judge Wright found considerable disenchantment with the manner of operation and even required the school board members to come to Court to hear the evidence on many occasions. The Court even found the school district to be in contempt during this time. The Court disregards that history and seeks to demonstrate that LRSD has been a model of compliance during the Judge Wright years. That simply is not the case. This Court recognized as much on pages 30-32 of its own Opinion. The Court is requested to explain on the one hand the findings of Judge Wright and on the other hand its compliments of the district for these 8 years. 19. On pages 77 through 85, the Court appears to take issue with the concept that LRSD 13specifically agreed to narrow the achievement gap between African American and other students. This lead the Court to impose an obligation upon Joshua to demonstrate that minority student achievement was a vestige of de jure desegregation. The Court thus imposed a liability concept upon Joshua during the hearing without any notice and without any cause. The Settlement Agreement is a remedy and as such may address issues other than those for which there has been a specific violation. But when the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court it becomes the law of the case and the parties do not have to readdress at each hearing the underlying basis for the remedy being provided. 20. On page 87, the Court makes a finding of fact (No. 3) that Joshua did not pursue the compliance issues by use of the correct procedures before objecting to the report as a whole. As stated before, Joshua was not obliged under the plan to do so. 21. In addressing the findings of fact pages 87 through 160, the Court appears to have adopted the LRSDs proposed findings. While the Court has great discretion, we make the following notations inter alia: a) on page 87, the Court speculates regarding resolution between Joshua and the school districts\nb) the Court speculates that Dr. Lacey would take appropriate action if she perceived any race based treatment despite the absence of any record of her past actions on this issue, page 93\nc) on page 94, the Court found that since 1989, LRSD had a good record of acting in good faith (see paragraph 18 supra)\nd) on page 96, the Court accepted the belief by Dr. Linda Watson that both Joshua 14e) f) g) h) i) J) k) and ODM were provided with copies of a compliance plan and did not require any evidence\non page 96, the Court without any record basis, concluded that Joshua counsel and staff have free access to LRSDs offices and schools and routinely received copies of any requested documents\non page 100, the Court excuses the districts failure in excluding Joshua from planning and other meetings that the district had regarding compliance\non pages 103 through 107, the Court does not address the elimination of disparities as being intended by the Plan\nrather, the Court addresses overall 1 reduction in suspensions where the racial disparities remain\non page 106, the advisory ODM Report is criticized by His Honor with respect to discipline but Judge Wright did not make the same criticism. Had she done so, a duty to address the issue would have been created\non page 109 a suspension index was created without any explanation (see finding 30), i.e. no witness explained it. The Court accepted the calculation by LRSD that there was no diminishing of disparity in discipline between 1997 and 2000\nthe Court on page 1 10 imposed upon Joshua a burden to prove that disproportionality in discipline was a result of racial discrimination. Joshua submits that that is the wrong legal standard to be applied under the law of this case. The issue is relief, not causation\non page 111, the Court disregarded the incidents of discrimination presented in 151) m) n) o) P) discipline. (See footnote 108) In doing so, the Court disregarded the admonition by Judge Wright not to present cumulative evidence regarding any matter and then held that the presented incidents were too isolated to allow judgment regarding the entire school system\non page 112, the Court may wish to reconsider the word probable in finding 38 in discussing the testimony of Dr. Watson. A review of her testimony establishes that environmental factors may be - not probably were the explanation for racial disproportionality\non page 113, the Court notes that Dr. Watson indicates that African American teachers suspended African American students more than white teachers. That appears to be a finding of racial treatment by African American teachers toward African American students. This establishes continuation of systematic discrimination toward African American students as well as perpetuation of disparities\non page 115, at footnotes 111-112, the Court seems to condone disparities in sports activities by noting on page 1 16 that students tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing. That in itself we submit is racial, i.e., whites-golf, tennis, soccer\nblacks - football, basketball and track\non pages 116-117, in addressing the testimony of Ray Gillespie, the Court does not address the inferences to be taken when white coaches publicly mistreat Black athletes nor the reasonable perceptions which are influenced by those actions\non page 118, the Court in finding 9, accepts a means test for participation in 16extra-curricular activities but this flies in face of the reality that most African American children in the LRSD - in contrast to its white students- cannot meet the means tests imposed\nq) with respect to advanced placement courses, the district has increased the enrollment of white students to a point to where the preexisting disparity has been extended. The programs undertaken by the district which are cited by the Court are minuscule. For example (SMART involved a summer number of 200 pupils and Teachers of Color could only involve six teachers per year in being prepared for AP. This program was started in January, 2001, less than two months before the Report herein), r) the Court disregarded the testimony of Jason Mercer who presented multiple incidents of unfair treatment at famed Little Rock Central High School and the Court entirely disregarded the testimony regarding of parent Romona Hortons travails regarding her precocious children who were also enrolled at Little Rock Central High School, s) the Court accepts a means test for participation in the University Studies Program despite the obvious conclusion that it will disqualify the great preponderance (90%) of African American students who attend Hall High School. The Court also concluded that in one instance, LRSD solicited a private donation to pay tuition for an African American student to take a course offered under the University Studies Program. The testimony does not identify that the race of that student. The Court is requested to correct this finding\n17t) with respect to counseling services, finding no. 24, page 133, the Court may wish to revisit this finding because it seems at odds with Ms. Watsons testimony\nu) with respect to academic achievement, the Court notes the obligation of the LRSD to be to approve the academic achievement of African American students. The issue is not simply to improve the achievement of African American students, rather, it is to bring their achievement levels to a range within reasonably proximity of the achievement levels of white and other students\nv) with respect to page 146, finding no. 16, there is no evidence of what Joshua counsel knew. Indeed, the 8\"' Circuit said that the parties should not retreat from the concept of eliminating the achievement gap\nand w) on page 114, finding 18, the Court again speculates regarding the loan provision forgiveness by the State of Arkansas toward LRSD. The Court then goes ahead and gives LRSD two more years in order to comply with the State agreement without there being joinder of, or a hearing upon the issue. The Court faults Joshua for not raising that issue but fails to acknowledge that when it was raised by Joshua, Judge Wright chose not to address it for the reasons set forth on pages 1 and 2, supra. This finding was not made upon any evidence regarding the Joshua objections to LRSDs Motion for Release from Court Supervision. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons for the Court to revisit the record in order to determine whether the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are supported by the evidence presented during the hearings before Judge Wright and His 18Honor. We also note that it is appropriate for the Court to again consider the context of the evidentiary presentations and withdraw its conclusions regarding those areas of compliance that the Court did not allow evidence to be developed regarding'g- Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No Joh^V^Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 IN W. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187(Fax) J Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent L prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this day of F ncfU.S 4,2c S. Mail, postage 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones ' WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 John^. Walker 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 0 1 2002 JAMES W CORMACK, ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * A * *  it * ie ii k * 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. I presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1day of October, 2002. U ED S' ES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE AND'OR CoY.__ 6 8 0OCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN M WALKER PA\" NO.667 p.2 John W. Walker^ P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS October 1,2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY.PJL DONNA J McHENRY 3210 Hendeoison Hoad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone (5OI) 372-342B  Fax (5O1) 372-8428 Email: mcheniyd^wbelLnet Honorable Judge WSliam R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wflson: On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSDs compliance with Section 2.7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being inposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshuas monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSDs attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects of Joshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the feet that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 172 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15,2004. I must also object to Courts imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Courts comments indicate that it does not forsce or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8* Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, fiill-time, the activities of the Little RockOCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.667 p.3 Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1,2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. Sincerely, W. WalkCT JWW\njs cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann MarshallIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter LRSD) for its Response to Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter Joshua) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration in turn. 1. The Courts use of the term supervision on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court supervision. See Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 471 (1992)(The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . . . (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter Revised Plan) was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense.3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSDs position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Courts focus on brevity and substance. In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system. Aaron v. Cooper. 243 F.2d 361, 362 (8* Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. Sec LRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODMs productivity. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuits mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an advisory position to the LRSD since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2Revised Plans transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODMs monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Courts discussion of Joshuas 1996 request for attorneys fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the terms of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshuas counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshuas attempt to justify the monitoring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended hundreds of meetings with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever threatened with arrest, and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels persistence and vigor. The LRSD also denies the implication that counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony of Drs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan  2.7. 11. The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Courts finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSDs Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSDs Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 312. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODMs June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSDs Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the Districts Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing. 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshuas argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4school. As Drs. Walberg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly refened to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of African-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a constitutional violator. The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSDs final report. Sc^c Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in turn: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurruss testimony that he asked Dr. Camine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no record of past actions is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. (c) Joshua points to nothing in the record which would indicate that the Courts characterization is erroneous. 5(d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODMs August 11, 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsels suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to conduct discovery. Joshuas opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Courts finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no failure for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court conectly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (0 The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, e^, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSDs calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. Sec CX 743. (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  62.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Courts admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5. (1) The Courts description of Dr. Watsons testimony is accurate given the context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not a finding of racial mistreatment by African- American teachers toward African-American students. (n) The Courts statement that students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy does not condone racial disparities in activities. (o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (P) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. (q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7so. The LRSDs success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSDs efforts as minuscule. (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to African- American students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watsons testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2.7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSDs March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration\nthat Joshuas Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied\nthat the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys fees expended herein\nand that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^=iOH------- Chrislopher Heller F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\unitary-rcsponse-mot-rcconsidCT wpd 9CERTIFICATE 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 October 7, 2002: 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\iinilary-response-mot-reconsidCTwpd 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1. 2002 LETTER For its response to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") October I, 2002 letter. Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSDs compliance with LRSDs various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshuas monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the Joshua class members and the LRSD.3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Courts September 13,2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives and class counsels obligations to the class members. 4. The Courts September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, s^. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. The LRSD can find in the Courts Order no basis for Joshuas argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Courts Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Courts Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshuas request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Courts Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court.WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshuas letter/motion of October 1,2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 By:' Christopher HellerCERTIFICATE 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 October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 iristopher HelleiR CEIVED iCT 1 2 201)2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS URT KAN OCT 1 1 2002 \u0026gt;NS, \\S OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION DESEI iREGATION MONITORING JAMES W, By:.- - - - - - - - - ER LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4\n82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On September 24,2002, Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678),' which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (Memorandum Opinion) declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871), except for  2.7.1\nand (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (docket no. 3677). On October 7,2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 'On September 23,2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction-and I will hew to this custom. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).^ After an initial review of Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, 1 considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshuas arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating 1 find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshuas arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, 1 think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly faulted Joshua for failing to present evidence ^Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSDs Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24,2002, and its Response to Joshuas Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSDs eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshuas Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9,2002, Joshuas counsel asked me to strike LRSDs Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshuas counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and 6(e), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSDs Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part of its challenge to LRSDs request for an immediate declaration of unitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ^117 (emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,^ 1 expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I fault Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson ... [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM ... 114 were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSDs compliance 3 It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19,2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. 1 remain puzzled. 4' ODM. For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider the competence of the -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002,1 carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODMs annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the ODMs budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school districts.^ While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODMs rapidly escalating budgets,^ which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional groupthe ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that ^In most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. ^See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Why Joshuas eounsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshuas counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODMs June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshuas counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshuas decision to use that Report, one of the Court's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline. required me to read and carefully analyze that document. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws-they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe 1 would have been remiss if I had not closely scrutinized the ODMs Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO72A (Rev.8/82) findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculationmaking the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for African- American students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, 24-26. Third, Joshuas counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshuas counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement\n $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581)\nand $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys fees-this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a guess that. since 1990, the attorneys fees that LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys fRSDv. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8'\" Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)totals at least $4,000,000. Joshuas counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my guess regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys fees paid to counsel for the three school districtsan estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshuas counsel can make the statement that counsel Walker does not accept the courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been directly benefitted by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys fees in this case. Fourth, Joshuas counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role of lawyers in this long-standing case\n^ i 'negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\n and a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel.' nlO Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshuas counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them.'' For the record, I have no predispositions, negative attitudes, or bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys fees that have been paid to all of the ^Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Motion for Reconsideration at 3. \"Motion for Reconsideration at 7. llu- The Judge must not like me is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the barwhen a lawsuit doesnt turn out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)attorneys in this caseI believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSDs decision to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel had already been paid (docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record'^not speculation or conjectureand also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD and Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys fees and the precise role of Joshuas counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any preconceived ideas or a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the ODMs staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing Judge Wrights actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\n'^ (b) I may be signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\n''* and (c) 1 may be trying to infer that Joshua take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.' ,\u0026gt;15 No one could fairly read the ^^See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 'Motion for Reconsideration at 7. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As 1 repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstanding job of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her.'^ Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCSSD. Finally, Joshuas counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.... There is no such inference or implication. Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that the court previously '^I do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing]. This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9,2002,1 entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how 1 intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSDs request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December 11,2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshuas challenge to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshuas counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSDs alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest groundslack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to African- American achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses\nguidance counseling\nand extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshuas counsel responded: Thats fine, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wrights ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSDs lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities\nand (b) how LRSDs alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshuas three remaining challenges to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24,2002, Joshuas counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshuas counsel to argue that the court instructed them not to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSDs substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again-one last time-the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshuas Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. DATED this day / J of October, 2002. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED JU THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 79(a) FRcV ON 10/Il jo -12- AO72A (Rev.8/82)llECElVEr OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCFGF IltSEGREGATON MOKiTCRiJ\u0026lt;G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION EAST^fSilslfeB^l OCT 1 1 2002 JAMES W, Me By\n_______/  RR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1,2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: (a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the Memorandum Opinion) declaring LRSD to be partially unitary\nand (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order (docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to treat the letter as a motion of some kind. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a supplement to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7,2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshuas October 1,2002 letter (docket no. 3681). Because I see no reason to await LRSDs Response to the matters raised in Joshuas 'A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Order. AO72A (Rev.8/82) 3 6 8 5 ssOctober 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the relief requested by Joshuas counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarity how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that 1 clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshuas letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that Supplement. In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motionsnot lettersraising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshuas counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshuas counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were the best defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8\" Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshuas counsel participated in monitoring ^In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)LRSDs compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.^ After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshuas counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $48,333.33 per year.'* Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshuas counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. In Section VILA., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshuas counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSDs compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1,1 provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshuas counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1,2002 letter as suggesting that Joshuas counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshuas counsel to perform monitoring duties-something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshuas counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to ^Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel were not entitled to receive attorneys fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuits approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing that monitoring work. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO72A (Rev.8/82)continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. 1 hope Joshuas counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plansomething I never expected to hearI believe I must now modify Section Vll.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua way monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and, //they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, 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 shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshuas counsel continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring of LRSDs compliance with that section of the Revised Plan. 1 have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshuas counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSDs implementation of its obligations under  2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, 1 will be available to resolve them. -4- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Second, Joshuas counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified comments in the Memorandum Opinion indicated that [I] do not foresee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required. This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several of its original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts. the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshuas counsels October 9,2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODMmuch less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. If I waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshuas counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. No more paper should -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. Thats my rulin. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. DATED this day of October, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUl/gE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79^) FRCP ON 10 I II [CZ- by -6- AO72A (Rev.8/82)\u0026amp; RECEIVED FILES L C3irvi OOl OCT 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 5 2Q02 JAMESW. W By----------- CLERK  EP CLEF^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S.C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding\n(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it\n(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1-expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy\n(d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) proceeding includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation\nIn reference to 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2), the Court is required to disqualify itself \"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy . . Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2dll3 (8\"' Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District. No. 1.. Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge. The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2-The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002. included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiffs counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings. Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Courts staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations\n775 F.2d 404, 407\nand959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel \\.yy833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplans name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Court of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time\nhowever they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set forth above and any other -J- writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Coun and the parties would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such hearing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His Honors earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2)\n2) the basis for the Courts conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(2)\nand 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. Respectfully submitted. A i / I !(\u0026gt;/ -7^ i- Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405^00 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 John W, Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187 (Fax) \\ Rickey HicksAT^^BarNo. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing h^been sent-i prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this/S^day of ^'and U.S. Mail, postage 2002\nMr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock. Arkansas 72222-7388 // / Jkn W. Walker -5- In re LI'ITLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTHKT, Petitioner. LITl'LE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAI. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee. Nos. 87-2160, 87-23G3. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Decided Nov. 6, 1987. Supplemental Opinion Filed Feb. 9. 1988. Litigation was brought involving election for school board jwsitions. The United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., directed elections for three school board positions and appeal was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district court judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuit Judge, held that: (I) fact that lawyer with whom trial judge once practiced appeared at one time in another case consolidated with pending case did not require district court judges disqualification, and (2) errors of procedure in proceeding did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. Ordered accordingly. 1. Judges =46 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one time for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and later severed from pending case did not warrant disqualification of district court judge\nconsolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeting and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A,  455(a). (b)(2). 1. The Hon. Henry WoikIs, United States District 833 FEUBKAL REPORTER, 2(1 SERIES 113 2. Judges *^=49(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  456(a). (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kaplan. Little Rock, Ark., for Little Hock School Dist. Sam Perroni, Little Rock, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, III., for North Little Rock. Before HEANEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, together with a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of the many important issues presented deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to take place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court? No. 87-2363 is an appeal by LRSD from the District Courts * order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Courts order. It is our understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the election. No. 87-2150 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATION OF WOOD Clle as 633 r.2d 113 (SlliCIr. 1987) declare that Judge Woods should have disqualified himself. In the alternative, it is suggested that we simply direct that anotli- er judge be assigned to this case. In addition to the petition for mandamus, various appeals also include suggestions for the disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic relief is appropriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicxcs curiae in a case called Clark V. Board of Educ. of tke Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-16B. The Ds- trict Court first consolidated Clark witli the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C,  456(b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice ... a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We dis- agree with this argument. Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partner's activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [2] In addition, the parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we du not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part of the able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that We decline to re- are anytJiing but easy. move him from the case. Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re- spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed The petition for writ of mandamus in No. 87-2160 is denied. We direct that our man dates in these two cases issue forthwith It is so ordered. w fo Bkoh1\u0026gt;HW$WH^ In re Application of I.niry A. WOOD to Appear Before the Grand Jury (Mise. 85-L-02). |J4 Appeal of UNITED STATES of America. No. 8C-1719. United Slates Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspiracy defendant, who wt acquitted, brought application to make inc vidual presentation to grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by FBI agent. United States Attorney presented alleg tions to grand jury, which declined to tai action. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter bad not been fairly present* and again requesting permission to appe before grand jury. The United States D trict Court, District of Nebraska. Warn K. Urbom, J., issued order to United Stal Attorney of District to make re-preseiv lion of matter, or applicants petition wot be granted. The United States appeah The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circ Judge, held that: (1) District Courts orc was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. Fagg, Circuit Judge, dissented w opinion.921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949F.2d253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d661 (1966) 426F.2d 1035 (1970) 449F.2d493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.3d 1255 (1997) 83 F.3d 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) 'I,ii d 1 John W. WAlker, RA. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (5011 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 314-244-2780 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA-DONNA J. McHENRY 3210 Henderson Road Little Rock. Ask.ans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 EM.AIL: mchen17d@swbeU.net October 22, 2002 Nir. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10 Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua\nCase No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District\nCase Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am particularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /John W. Walker TWW:js ccki (L 959 PWEK^UJWPORTER, 2d SERIES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, 6 F- LnTLB ROCK SCHOOL DIS-V. v. PUl.ASKI CVY. SCHOOL l\u0026gt;. Cllca9.59 r?.{l 716 (flIhClv. 1992) Hudsum Miltoll .Incksnn\nborene Josh- ua\nLcslie Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSLacy Josliun\nKntlvevinc JUiight\n717 Sara MatthcHs: Bcclry McKinney\nnev- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. I Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPal Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth IJtIh Rock Classroom Teachers Associalion\nSora Malthev/s\nBecky McKinney: DerPulaski Association Teachers\nLittle Rock of Ciassioom Teachers Association\nClassroom Alexa Arm f' 3:\n- sV rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nPaishsi Taylor\nMiles\nNAACP\n.Foyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor: Parsha Taylor\nRobert Willinghaiu\nham, Intervenors, Tonya Willing- Robert IVillingliaiu\nham. Intervenors, Tonya Willing- FUI..A8IU COUN'IY Sl'ECMl. SCHOOL strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Ballin,, ton\nKhayyam Do.vis\nJanice Deni\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTali) hlSTUlCl* ff 1\nNorth LitUe Kock School District\nLeon Bornes\nSheryl Dituu\nMac Faulkner\nKtchnrd A. (lld- Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLoieneJosh- dings\nman\nMarianne (Josser\nShirley bowcry: Doii Ilind- Boh Lyon\nua\nLeslie Wayne Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Joshua: Katherine Knijlif\nSara Matthews\nBecky McKinney\nDer- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylw: Robert Willingham\nTonya Willing, ham, Intervenors, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rod School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Gid- dings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- man\nShirley Lowery\nBob Lyon: George A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Raines\nDavid Sain: Bob SteniJer\nDale Ward\nJohn AVard\nhidy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- \u0026lt;lants, I?' George A. McCini j\nBoh Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Kaines\nDavid Sain\nPULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rock School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Giddings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- iiinn\nShirley i^ouery\nBob Lyon\nGeorge A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley: Buddy Raines\nDavid Sahi\nDob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- dsiils, Bob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Delen- dnnte, Philip E. Kaptnu\nJanet Fiilliaiu\nJohn Bilhciiuer\nP.A. Iloiliugsworth. Appelicc.s. Nos. Dl-IG.30, iind 91-7,402. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted J.an. 7, 1992. Decided March 23, .1992. Philip E. Kaplan\n.Fanet Pulliam\nJohn Bilheimer\nP.A. Hollingsworth, Appellee.s. LOTLE RfJCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appellee, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore: Pat G-e\nPjl Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nMorth Lillli Roch Classroom Teachers Associalion: Pulaski Teachers\nAssociation of Little Rock Teachers Association\nr Classroom Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEd Bullington\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Beni: John Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia \u0026gt; I  !? Philip E. Kaplan\nJanet FuUiaiuj John Bilheiinev\nP.A. Holliug.swortli, Appellants. LITTLE ROCK StHIOOL DISTRICT. Appeliniit, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPat Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nIaw firm which represented school district in school desegregation case applied for attorney fees for services rendevod. The United States District Court for the. Eastern District of Arkansas, Susan Webber WiiRht, .1., foiijxl that disUict was a prevailijig party, that the parties had agreed that district would prosecute fee petitions at firm's pievailirig rates, that district would pay difference ijetwoeii their billed rates and proceetls of any attorneys fees award, and that the jiavties had modified their agreement U) provide that group and firm would split evenly any award made by theamrt. Difjlrlct appealed. The Court of Appeals held thak (1) amount of Pulnskt Teachers\nAssociation Little of Rock . Teachers Association\nClassi'ooiu Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Biilling- too\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Dent\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLorene Josh- ua\nWayne Leslie Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Jofdnia\nKatherine Knight\naward was neilher clearly erroneous abuse of discrcUou\n(2) findiuK that nor con- h-acl existed between district\nainl firm and conlenU of the coutrncl\nwas suppoi l-ed by the evidence\nand (3) district was not es- topped to defend siRainst contention that superintendent had agreed to firm's proposal for 50/50 split in award of attorneys' fees. J Affirmed. izKlicbii CDRECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. 1. u.s: districtdourt EASTERN district ARKANSAS OCT 2 9 2002 JAMES VZ Plainluf Defendants Intervenors Intervenors ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS On July 22 - July 24,2002, an evidentiary hearing was held in this case on the issues raised by Little Rock School Districts motion for unitary status. 2. On September 13, 2002, a memorandum opinion was entered which ruled upon the issue of unitary status. 3. Last Friday, October 25, 2002, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, raising two issues: a. Whether I should disqualify because approximately fifteen years ago I represented The Honorable Henry Woods, the presiding judge in this case at that time. This representation was in connection with a mandamus petition by the LRSD and Joshua Intervenors (the latter represented by Mr. Walker, among others)\n6 9 5b. Ms. Janet Pulliam, former counsel of record for a party in this case, joined my staff on September 26, 2002, as a law clerk (she came aboard nearly two weeks after the September 13 Memorandum Opinion). 4. I will deal with the issue involving Ms. Pulliam first. From the outset, Ms. Pulliam has been kept completely separate from this case, and will be in the future. Attached as Exhibits A and B to this order are interoffice memos dealing with this issue. I believe they resolve this question. SERVING AS A LAWYER IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY 5. I turn now to my representation of Judge Woods in the 1987 mandamus proceeding. LRSD and Joshua Intervenors filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that the Eighth Circuit disqualify Judge Woods. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839F.2dl296, 1301 (S' Cir. 1988). I entered the case, at that time, for the limited purpose of representing Judge Woods before the Eighth Circuit in connection with the request that he be disqualified. Crucially important is the fact that the mandamus issues had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. The mandamus was argued orally before the Eighth Circuit (sitting in Little Rock) on November 3,1987, and, two days later, the Court handed down its decision, denying the request for mandamus. The November 5 opinion, LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112,113 (8* Cir. 1987), was very brief. and included this language: Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with respect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. I was shown as counsel of record for Judge Woods in mandamus in the November 5 decision. Thereafter, I had no further involvement. 26. The Eighth Circuit handed down a supplemental opinion on February 9,1988, LRSD V. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296 (8* Cir. 1988). In this opinion, the Court explained, in more detail, why the petition for mandamus had been denied in the November 5 opinion. I am not shown as counsel of record in the February 9 opinion. 7. Actually, the answer to Intervenors question appears in LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112. The court stated: [A] lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicus curiae in a case called Clarkv. BoardofEduc. ofthe Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-155. The District Court first consolidated Clark with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455 (b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice...a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We disagree with this argument. Clark was a closed case , or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partners activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. Id. at 113. Likewise, my appearance fifteen years ago was brief (transitory). I represented none of the parties, and, as stated above, the narrow recusal issue that I addressed on behalf of Judge Woods had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. 8. In United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4* Cir. 1998), the Court held that the recusal of a district judge was not required when the judge, as a lawyer, represented a creditor of the defendant (in a bankruptcy fraud case) because the creditors debt played no part in the defense or prosecution of the case. In other words, the key here is the phrase the matter in controversy. In United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, *11 (E.D. La. May 5, 1997), the Court stated: In this Courts view, a former representation should trigger the matter in controversy requirement if the issues with which it dealt are put in issue in the 3subsequent case in the sense that they need to be resolved by the judge who is presiding over the subsequent case. If the judge need not resolve an issue that either she or her former partners were involved in, then there is no appearance of impartiality and the purpose of Section 455(b)(2) is satisfied. In reaching this conclusion, the district judge in Louisiana cited LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296. WAIVER \u0026amp; ESTOPPEL 9. On top of the fact that my appearance in the case was brief and did not involve, in any way, any of the issues pending before me, a motion to disqualify me under section 455 would not be timely. On January 3,1984, the Joshua Intervenors, represented by Mr. John W. Walker and Mr. Wiley A. Branton, Jr., filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). On April 23, 1984, Judge Woods entered an Order (docket no. 470) denying Joshuas Petition to Intervene. On May 23,1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) directing Judge Woods to grant Joshua permission to intervene as parties in this case. Thus, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua before, during, and after the 1987 mandamus proceeding in which I appeared as counsel for Judge Woods. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in E. \u0026amp; J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9* Cir. 1992): It is true that under section 455 a judge may have an obligation to recuse himself or herself without a motion from one of the parties\nit is self-enforcing on the part of the judge. However, it does not necessarily follow that a party having information that raises a possible ground for disqualification can wait until after an unfavorable judgment before bringing the information to the courts attention. It is well established in this circuit that a recusal motion must be made in a timely fashion. The absence of such a requirement would result in... a heightened risk that litigants would use recusal motions for strategic purposes.\" While there is no per se rule that recusal motions must be made at a fixed point in order to be timely,... such motions should be filed with reasonable promptness after the ground for such a motion is ascertained. (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.) 410. On January 3, 2002, this case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). At that time, Mr. Walker knew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker, himself, helped initiate in an attempt to have Judge Woods removed from this case. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Yet, it was only after my September 13,2002 Memorandum Opinion ruling against Joshua on 5 of the 6 asserted grounds for denying unitary status that Joshuas lawyers chose to file the motion for a section 455 hearing. If there ever was a case of waiver and estoppel, this is it. I hasten to point out again. however, that even if Joshua had not elected to take a wait and see approach to deciding whether to file their section 455 motion, there would be no reason for me to recuse since I have never served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" 11. In Joshuas section 455 motion, there appears this curious language: The Court, in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals. . .hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Motion at 3. One reading the above quoted language with a jaundiced eye might take it to suggest that I attempted to hide my 1987 representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding. I described the language as curious since, as noted, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua at the time and one of the moving parties who filed the petition for writ of mandamus. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Thus, it is clear beyond peradventure that Mr. Walker knew of my being involved in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. For Joshuas benefit --1 will explain my reason for not citing these cases - a reason much less sinister than Joshua may be suggesting: they had no bearing on the unitary status issues that were decided in my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. 512. CONCLUSION Since this Order fully sets forth my involvement in, and my knowledge of, the matters raised in Joshuas section 455 motion, there is no reason for a hearing, i.e., there is nothing material I could add to the above. And, in my opinion, I have fully answered the concerns of Joshua. 13. If and when Joshuas counsel obtain copies of the briefs I filed in connection with the mandamus issue,' I will be willing to look at the issue again if, and only if, these briefs reveal that my participation in the case was significantly different from my clear recollection. At that time. however, Joshuas counsel would be required to convince me that raising the question at this late date, after losing, was not for strategic purposes. 14. Joshuas pleading raises the question of the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings. Answer: none. SUGGESTION 15. It is obvious that Joshuas counsel feel aggrieved by my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. I again commend the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to them. That Court has had a world of experience in hearing disappointed suitors. In fact, this is its forte. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2002. UN: STATES DISTRICT JUDG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITJ AND/OR 79(a) P ON 'My file has long since been destroyed. 6 BILL V L Wl 'ILSON JUDGE TO: DATE: RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 MEMORANDUM All Hands at 423 U. S. Courthouse September 30, 2002 LRSD case Janet Pullium was, at one time, one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District. So, she will not be involved in this case in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly. EXHIBIT AKay Holt 09/25/2002 11:13AM To: Mary Johnson/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christa Newburg/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Valerie Glover/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christina Conrad/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS cc: Subject: LRSD case Per Judge. When Janet comes on board weve got to put a Chinese wall between her and the LRSD case. She was involved in it at some point. EXHIBIT B I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_326","title":"Compliance court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2002/2006"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/326"],"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":["177 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ' APR 19 2m JAM CC' lACK, CLERK DEP CLERK 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. 1 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS 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 / day of April, 2004. CT Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. JUDGE 8 5 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE 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 Response to the courts Order dated April 19, 2004, states: ADE does not plan to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits at the hearings currently scheduled before the court on April 27-28, 2004. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General By\nMARK A. HAGEMEIHR, #94127 Assistant Attorney Genewl 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 April 2004, addressed to:Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Arm Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3* Little Rock, AR 72201 2u vni 1 WMLKLPl NO.004 P.2 I I I 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT  eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS----- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:S2CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ETaL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LTST The-Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during the hearin! 6 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. J unions Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District -15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal al Franklin Elementary School, LRSD -10 minutesII 1 pinu.rst.r-. NO.U04 P.3 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School. LRSD -10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent PCSSD - 5 minutes -10 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, 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 W.*' Walker ^'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R, Jones .... President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21^ by placing a copy of s prepaid. day of April, 2004 apie in the United .States mail postage I / /' nited .States IV J tJU-4 \u0026gt;/C7-COO/^ I I iv. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^ Eastern district of Arkansas WESTERN division little rock school district PLAibmp? V, Case no. 4\n82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. defendant MRS. LORENE JOSHUA DT AL. Katherine knight, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHTRTT LTST The Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004\n1) LRSD Policy IL (Evaluation of Instructional Programs), CX 575 2) LRSD 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. CProvided to Iniervenors by Counsel for e LRSD, October 25,2002) Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education fPrcnaredbv Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley)\nVri - 2) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 , b) Approval of rhe SEDLs Program Evaluation for the CoEaborative Project, November 21, 2002 Action Team Vo \" of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Souwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002 'I-iU. H.5 VtH d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13,2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 ' I Vol. C- f) Onward to ExceUence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Teem Progrem Eveleetidn, Febmeiy 13, 2003 i \"d\" ) Vijt A'!: h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 v/ i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February: j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 n, 2003 k) Extended Year Education CEYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 V\n)l. 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluatioi ii, February 27, 2003 6) (^delines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, S T) 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  I District from 1998 to 2003 c \u0026lt;1   * ^Srams in the We Rct School 11) The LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 / \u0026gt; 1'9' 1 i2) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D, (Professor, Lynch School of Education. Research Associate. Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation - tion. Senior College) and Educational Policy, Boston  2 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race nOh of Educational .Administration and Head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization ini^uanon and Head and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves rhe right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Lav/ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-375S Fax (501) 574-4187 ------------transmission cover .SRPKT Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: rcZ7SHOULD RLCEIVE [ COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS \"\u0026lt;(1(11) 374.S75S\u0026gt;\" only for the use of the individual Or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not the intended .. , -------------------------- ut uiib inesss recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient v that any dissemination, distribution received this communication in or :, you are hereby notified copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have IO error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message TT C Dz\\z-ta1 _T'l____1___  o US at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service, Thank you.ONiUOilNOW N0liV33HD3S3a 30331330 ^ooz c 2 ydv aaAiHoau tv, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 6ep LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE lOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST The 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) LRSD 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 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 of the SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21, 2002 c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002d) 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, PhD, (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) 7) Letter from Clrris Heller to Aim Marshall and Jolm 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 LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 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 if the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.li Robert Pressman i ' Walker Hicks Walker, .''^.hh W V 22 Locust Avenue /-Rickey ] Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 {/ John W. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 99 Hudson Street Inc. New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21*^ day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. a W-b-A RECEIVED ARKANSAS APR 2 G 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2 1200j clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EPCLE^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LIST The Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during th kaon to rr 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, LRSD - 10 minutes11. 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, PCSSD - 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, P /I L F Robert Pressman\nsman Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 A'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21 St day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of sapae prepaid. ' \\ 1 in the United States mail postage I / V mled IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^j\n! . . X X , * ---------------- ---------- CT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Arkansas WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. MCCORMACK, CLERK -ELAINTIFF OtPCLfcRK V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL APR 2, 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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. WITNESS LIST 1. Dr. Steven M. Ross, Director, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n2. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, former LRSD Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n3. Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n4. Dr. Ed Williams, LRSD Research Specialist - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n5. Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\nPage 1 of 46. Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n7. 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)\n2. September 26, 2002 Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03\n3. October 4, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley transmitting Compliance Plan to counsel and Ms. Marshall\n4. October 10, 2002 memo to Dr. Ken James from Ann Marshall re LRSDs Compliance Plan 5. October 10, 2002 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Bonnie Lesley\n6. October 11, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall regarding Compliance Remedy\n7. October 17,2002 Request for Qualifications of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant\n8. October 25, 2002 letter from Clay Pendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall\n9. November 4, 2002 letter to John Walker and Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n10. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in LRSD prepared by Dr. Ross\n11. December 3, 2002 letter to Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n12. December 3, 2002 letter to John Walker from Bonnie Lesley\n13. January 27, 2003 Memo to Dr. Ken James from Dr. Bonnie Lesley regarding contracted Services - Dr.Ross\n14. 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 41 15. April 8, 2003 letter from John Walker to Clay Fendley\n16. Response to ODM and Joshua Objections, by Dr. Steven M. Ross\n17. Changes in Science Curriculum, by Dennis Glasgow\nRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-20JJ_______ BXC Christopher Heller 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\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^\"^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He^ Page 4 of 4RECEIVED MAY 1 r 2004 EASTERN RN DISTRICT ARK lUHT KANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICTfpOURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I MAY 1 2 2004 ESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAY 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS { . ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSDs Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) (2) 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 LRSDs March 14, 2003 Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Courts Compliance Remedy (docket entry #3745), IL- Rl \" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of IL-Rl. Exhibit A to LRSDs Compliance Report is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSDs attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written concerns raised by Joshuas counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding AO 72A (Rev.8/82) 8 6 4LRSDs proposed Compliance Plan. In order for the Court to place Mr. Pendleys October 25,2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walkers October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his concerns about the Compliance Plan\nand (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''^ 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 LRSDs Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 'I speculate that your document is probably LRSDs Compliance Plan, which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSDs counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)(b) During the hearing on June 14 and 15, please instruct your witnesses to testify using plain 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 Courts 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 LRSDs 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 LRSDs 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 J day of May, 2004. AO72A (Rev.e/82) Thi-j uuouivicLi-. I .!\u0026lt; 11_,\\L-i. Oil  JCKST SHEET h- COMEuSmNC,' y_BY Oft c- FRC -3- UNITED STATES DISTRICT T c received IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 4 2004 OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 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 EL-Rl\")\nB. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002\nand, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walkers 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 33. 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 Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3CERTIFICATE 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 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 3 of 3 Christopher HellerLittle Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 1^ EXHIBITThe District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7' after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afiican-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented imder 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\nand (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 prograrhs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1B. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (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\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all ftxrther supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Courts Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\nDevelop 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\nMaintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (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\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Courts Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Courts 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 Courts 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. Lesleys testimony on the difference between assessment and evaluation, see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3It 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 Courts intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Courts 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 As 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 LRSDs 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\n(2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (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 ALTs. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the ALTs for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks\n(2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4testing and test administration\n(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 LRSDs administration of the ALTs redundant\nand (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 Grade 2 Grade 4 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. 5Proposed 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, e.g., 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\n0)) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modiflcations or the elimination of any programs\nand (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 Courts 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 LRSDs 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 armual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 64. 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. new, Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph As 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 Afiican-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\n(1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board .... (emphasis in original)). The District Courts 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 7of 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 As 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 Cs 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 LRSDs 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\n1. 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 read 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 LRSDs implementation of the grant-funded 8Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). NSF trained a team of LRSD 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). 3. 4. 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 LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed\n1. 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 9the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 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. 5 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. South-west 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 Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 1011. 12. 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. 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 Courts 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 Schools 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 Committees 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 Afiican-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to complete an evaluation. 11Extended 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 CLTs during 2000-01. A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CLT 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. 12Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this proposed Compliance Plan to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, suggested revisions from ODM and Joshua. 3. Place Compliance Plan on the agenda for Board review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. Week of September 30, 2002 Week of October 7, 2002 October 10, 2002 October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 13 Clay Fendley Ken James Attorneys Ken James Compliance Team Ken James Attorneys Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax8. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 10. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 11. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 14. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 14 Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley15. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 March 1,2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 15 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley21. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 25. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15, 2004 16 Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken Janies Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance TeamAppendix 1 Proposed IL-RlLITTLE 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 Boards 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 Board- approved 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, 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\nStakeholder 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 clients 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. 1Report 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 2evaluation, 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 evaluators 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. 3Impartial 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. Metaevaiuation. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 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. 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 thp production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 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. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4as 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. B. C. D. E. F. G. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. 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. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 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 Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) 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 Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents 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 Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\n5Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks. CA: Convin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. 8. 9. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto 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 African- American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 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 Boards 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. 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 Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 611 .The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilsons 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 Wilsons 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 u Joellen Killion (2002). Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2LITTLE 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\n(b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based\nand (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\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1Appendix 3 Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002'l a k i n g ROBBY CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation when you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a with twists and unexpected turns. slippery, often rocky road. Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a master plan. While it requires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avoid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are launching a major, summative program evaluation. A summative evaluation is done at major junctures in a programs life cycle and emphasizes documenting impact. Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue, alter, expand, downsize, or eliminate it. A formative evaluation, on the other hand, means monitoring and collecting data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Formative 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\n Create a realistic timeline 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\nRobbychampion@aol.com. 78 provides needed momentum for the work\n Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions throughout the process\n Help recruit people to assist with the project on the myriad evaluation tasks\n Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or wiU extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE PROCESS 1. Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. 2. Learn more about 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 evaluation, 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 ntight push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002 t a k I J, g m e a 5 JI re ! i i i I I ! i ation experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to leam about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on professional development, measurement, and 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 TeacherJhduction Program or the Early Literacy Initiative since so many different initiatives are being undertaken simultaneously around 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. 3. Using a matrix to provide a birds-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 make the evaluation manageable. 5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense\nquantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. 7. Determine a realistic schedule for collecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase n are critical. They determine 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 win be shaped to use a quantitative or a , qualitative model  or a mixmre of the two. In the design phase, you make other major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-depth case study, whether to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at: www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ chainpion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of smdent work instead of official documents 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 smdent 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 committee may drift into the realm of program planning as you encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve program leaders in your discussions. Developing or gathering instruments 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 smdent attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in smdent attendance at aU grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact. PHASE 111: PREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences will want to know 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 useful 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- minute progress updates in faculty meetings, bulleted statements on your web site, a digital picture album of the programs results in classrooms with photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with examples of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of five pages or less to help,readers get the essential information. PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for the whole evaluation., 2. Create a realistic timeline. 3. Assign work. 4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomphsh all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented critical friends to get the work done. One caution: For formal or summa- tive evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to perform critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality techmeal expertise for the critical technical analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, poheies, and practices of your professional 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. E JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr, Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: Plan. This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSDs proposed Compliance The courts remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before todays 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 Afiican 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 Wilson, 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 courts remedy. 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts 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. 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 may ultimately have about the courts 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 courts views on an appropriate remedy. irtcerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of RecordOCT.24.2002 8:06fiM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Volker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 or COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PjL EONNAJ.McKE.NEY 8210 HbNDEKSON SQaD Litoe Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Pax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchemyd^awbollnet Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W, Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V, PCSSD Dear Chris: This 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. 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 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 districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. 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. 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 performanof: 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 : EXHIBIT 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] 002' OCT. 24.2002 8:07AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 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). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of Afiican American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. . Walker Sincere^, JWW:Ip All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] @003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MAY 2 c 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. 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\n^CL14---------- BYk Christopher Hell Page 1 of 2CERTIFICATE 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 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 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 A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2 IGLOSSARY 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 ALTs in September 2002, ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (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, Sth, 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 students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print)  One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens 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 childs 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 reading 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 Sth 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. EEPE (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 HIPPY (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 TestJR 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 engineerinj 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 educationNSF (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 3^^ 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 ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb 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 8* and 9* 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 doesnt 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 II. raw scores. It  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (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.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 7Z//V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. RECZiVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Jl/N - 9 200^ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS 07 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. II [Id. at n 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 Af rican-american students. further find that LRSD's 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment substantial compliance with Sec. to improve the academic I 1achievement of African-American students\nfor, 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, emphasis in original] replaced with new programs [at 150\nsupervision and monitoring conclude that the court should continue 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] I 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 TI [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\n. J! [\"Compliance Remedy, TI Mem. Opin. at 170\nsee also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at and JX at names. --, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last 2The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this 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. Opin. at 15 6\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]\nat 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. n [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 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) (ODM report. March 30, 2004)\nJones and Marshall testimony] The ODM report states in part: ri 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. omitted] IT [JX 11 at 16] PRE II [footnote Planning, Research and Evaluation. refers to the Department of a 2 2 3The 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] . . n [Mem. 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 African- TXmerican students. . . [Mem. Opin. at 170\nemphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRSD never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004)\nJones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mem. Opin. at 151- 52\n153\n156-58], 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 fl designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- 7\\merican students . If [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 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 a 4[JX 11 at 3\nJones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December n 3, 2002, regarding the completion of of the 14 page 148 8 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 District. I! [JX 6] The document articulates. among others. the following premise [JX 6 at 1]\n(9.) Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while sufficient lacking 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. 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 tl program documentation. 11 n H 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 The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 IT page 148 evaluations \"without additional work could be approved by the school board . [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 \"page 148 evaluations.\" [JX 6 at 12] evaluations. TT 3 5provision: \"Program Evaluation Procedures [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\\instruction program that is to be evaluated, schedule of its implementation. with information about the (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, this curriculum\\instruction program been ineffective 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.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (\". . . program (10.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") [JX 1] provides that all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation. TI Policy IL-Rl further identifies these n ' Has . this . 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 TI [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 solid understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was a 6implemented, 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 writing  the intended and the actual program with reference to such characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures. location, facilities, setting, activities, 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 \"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.\" The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not includincf 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\nat 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7particular 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\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, 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 teachers 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 information 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\nLRX 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\nHaney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires\nlack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups\ninadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8from 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\nJX 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 n focus[es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . . n The description of programs is exceedingly terse and, at grade levels 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 9inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation). This study can not help to answer the question n whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to n impact at-risk learners. LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for identifying evaluation topics the following question [at 4] :  Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? II See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Evaluation (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\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, 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 individual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21. ) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determining the extent of implementation of educational programs. but does not provide results for the math-science program. [Math- Science-Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how 10the program is implemented, IT this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test s\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1722","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' preliminary exhibit list regarding January 28, 2002, hearings; District Court, three orders; District Court, District Court, notice of filing, 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":["2002-01"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School discipline","Student activities","Parents","School administrators","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' preliminary exhibit list regarding January 28, 2002, hearings; District Court, three orders; District Court, District Court, notice of filing, 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/1722"],"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":["143 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"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 CEIVED 2 2001, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITOR!NQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS l\\llRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JANUARY 28. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the January 28, 2002 hearings: 1. E-mail dated July 2, 200 l from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 2. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley ( page 290) 3. E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Vann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 4. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 5. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley ( page 191) 6. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Carnine to Bonnie Lesley 7. E-mail dated November 21, 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 8 E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 9. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) 10. E-mail dated July 14, 2001 , July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) 11 . E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) 12. E-mail dated April 18, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) 13 . E-mails dated October 25, 2001 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 1 7) 14. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 15. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 a.m from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 16. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 17. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Carnine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re: ALT Check-in (Page 50) 18. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 3 51) 19. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 20. E-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (page 219) 21. E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Carnine (page 19) 22. Email dated February 13m 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine (Pages 17 and 18) 23. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 24. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Saie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 25. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 26. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer - 27. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 28. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 29. Letter dated Februa1y 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 30. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 31. Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer \"') .)~. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer \"_)\".) . Letter dated October l 0, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 34. Letter dated September 13 , 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 35 . E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Carnine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-01) 36. E-mail dated April 19, 200 l from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart ( Page 3 7) 37. E-mail dated April 25, 200 l from Kathy Lease to Mark Millhollen - 38. E-mail dated May 25 , 200 l from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 3 58) 39. E-mail dated .June 7, '.?.000 from Clay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 40 E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paa! (Page 136) 4l . E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 42. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 43 . E-mail dated February 28, 200 I to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 44. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 45 . Memo dated March 11 , l999 to Les Carnine from James Washington 46. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 47. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 48 . Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Carnine - 49. Memo dated tvJay 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026 Administration buildings Joshua reserves the right to utilize exhibits listed by Little Rock School District and further reserves the right to sup plement this list after additional discovery. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 fax Byf)4W~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing exhibit list and exhibits have been hand carried to counsel for the Little Rock School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on this 2nd day of Janaury, 2002. LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: Latest Fax I had Anita fax over to you the latest--a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and DRA--so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. 4. The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for I nstruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :44 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for those three times? - Original Message- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :15 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review anv NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM To: __ ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILA.M, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL. ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TE::TER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182 smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1 :59 PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Cc: NEAL, LUCY: LESLEY, BONNIE; LEASE, KATHY R.; SMITH, GARY Subject: RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:33 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message-' From: SMITH, GARY Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:25 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WARD, LIONEL: GADBERRY, BRADY L.; NEAL, LUCY; MITCHELL, SADIE: CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G.: Subject: Dr. Lesley, ADAMS, LEON; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRADFORD, GAYLE; BRIGGS, MONA; BROADNAX, KAREN; CLEAVER, VANESSA; COLFORD, SUSAN: DAVIS, SUZI: DONALDSON, MABLE: Eddie McCoy; ELSTON, JO; FULLERTON, JAMES; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HAWKS, EVERETT; KEOWN, ADA: MARION BALDWIN; NORMAN, CASSANDRA R.; PRICE, PATRICIA; TATUM, KATHY; WYATT-ROSS, JANICE The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are;  obtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed  develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to all of you in Cyber Land - is there anything e!se I forgot? - thanks Gary 290 LESLEY, BONNIE From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: To : Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO Cc: Subject: NEWBURN, LINDA; LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Counseling Program Kit Message Flag: Follow up Due By: Flag Status: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C Babbs, Jr ' jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl 2. ar. us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: VANN, SUELLEN Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11 :08 AM To: HESTER, GAIL Cc: ELSTON, JO; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot; the kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOB BS sheet - print front only; quantity 30 ,000 2. Early college planning sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back; quantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suellen 5. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 167 LESLEY, BONNIE A,From: LEASE, KATHY R. W,Sent: To: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Seciion 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all day, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! ----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. 2. When touching upon Or. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district A.efforts as opposed to \"praising\". W,3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we wi ll include \"districtwide\" not be there yet but this will help to serve as an indicator of established base Ine information from which we will jump off of. - Keep your ch in up . . Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District --Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; HUFFMAN, MAC; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY, EDDIE; SUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.; TRUETT, IRMA; WILLIAMS, ED Subject: Section 2  File: Deseg Report (2. 7.1 ).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS--PRE folks--Look to see what I left out, what typos I have, and what needs to be edited. Thanks 12 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289. I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. - Are we having fun yet? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District  3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: To: Monday, July 02, 2001 8: 16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R. Subject: RE: Thank you, my friend. I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged.\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list It'll be interesting. --Original Message- F rom: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it . And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Carnine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! Mona R. Br iggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324- 2412 \"Seek rirst to Unders tand; then to be understood\" (Covey) - - - --Original Message--- -- - From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent : Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM To: BRIGGS, MONA R. 191 STEWARr;oo~ALD M~ . From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; Mitchell, Sadie; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Upper Division Classes and African Americans Were you able to pull together the numbers--last year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information . When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue--impact on black kids as Katherine ... lKF Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE; CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Chart Revisions Ken, Thanks so much for this explanation of what happened. The important thing about making a mistake is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profit from it. I know you feel really badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!! Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. - OriginalMessage- From: SAVAGE, KEN Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:31 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: Chart Revisions Dr Lease, I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark data. When I created the charts originally I had encountered a problem similar to the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting the error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alarmed that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appear to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the charts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned th is morning: I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data. I copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object. I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error. I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked\" charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections. I emailed the file with the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Here's where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning.  First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, I only sent you the charts and not the data that drives them. So regard less, you could not have updated the charts.  Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated. Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the \"linked\" item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What I propose to do to prevent th is kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which contain the data--no linking. 2. Only create the \"linked\" charts after ALL data has been proofed and corrected. \" The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and last'year for both) Math and Literacy. I am printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOLJS - Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we shou ld slow down a bit and do it ngm. Are you In agreement? ._ KL  -----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Original thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th court submission but with information you have noted, consideration of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:27 PM To: 'trrose@ualr.edu'; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: Research Committee Meeting Importance: High We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting at 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be with us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you think! Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd. kl2.a r. us 7 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:2'1 PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: Documents yes, thanks. I need asap. - Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Subject: Documents We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Charlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first th ing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.a r. us LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM A To: WARD, LIONEL W subject: RE: SAIP He requested info from me. I to ld him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -Original Message- From: WARD, LIONEL Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: SAIP Are you trying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requ irements with wise, careful and timely deliberations this year. ( -----------O- riginal MeSSoge--- ' From: LESlc--Y, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:49 PM To: WARD, UONEL Subject: SAIP - Lionel, has Mr. Walker requ ested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send to him? Thanks. v- Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 88 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE . Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8: 16 AM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subj ect: RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off, as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken ---Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent : Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:\u003cl.2 PM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the efforts-even if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the areas of evaluation and assessment. Great job! We will touch base tomorrow. Ken - --Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE .. Subject: Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  File: 1 Program Evaluation.doc \u003e\u003e  File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96 Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STudent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP} as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" I replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2.7. I do not have any information beyond what you will find there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learn ing Links that I had fo rgotten about--about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program, the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr. Walker as well? . Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 6 501;324-2131 W 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: Subject: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessmenUprogram evaluation. That includes coJlecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. 1 Program E.va!uation.ooc 1 Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School -District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 - 0l/ 324-0S67 (fax) 102 LESLEY, BONNIE A From: W sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1 :33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the'district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -----Original Message--- From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u003cBALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u003cdcrary@newfutu resforyouth .org\u003e Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u003cMRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e; PAAL, MARY M. \u003cMMPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u003eI talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u003edistrict so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u003ebase. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u003eMary Paal will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of \u003eyour budget? \u003e - Dr. Bonnie A Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u003eLittle Rock School District \u003e3001 S. Pulaski \u003eLittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u003e501 /324-2131 \u003e501 /324-0567 (fax) \u003e \u003e LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 18, 200112: 32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H. ; LACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results What group of principals did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until all schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their results unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. A Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. W High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in. 708 Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing; so if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printing. They have all of their results. We're still missing two of the middle schools' Algebra I / geometry resu lts as of this morning. We are having a scoring M robiem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests w equire no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: ALT Results I met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: .aient: w o: Subject: ~ ~ Rose.doc Paulette Mabry [pmabry@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley; Brady Gadberry; Junious Babbs; Linda Austin; Marian G. Lacey; Sadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: BRIGGS, MONA R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Cost of Tools for Learn ing (Fred Jones); Parent Component High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @-$18.00 (regula rly priced at 29.95) 300-499@ $18.50 200-299@ $18.95  0-199@ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is $546.75; it may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE: Parent involvement with train ing 709 From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:44 AM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/.324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores Irma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately, I s "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1702","title":"Court filings concerning status report concerning Baker Elementary, LRSD's March 15, 2001, compliance report, PCSSD motion of approval for middle school site, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","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":["2001-12"],"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","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School integration","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning status report concerning Baker Elementary, LRSD's March 15, 2001, compliance report, PCSSD motion of approval for middle school site, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"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/1702"],"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":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for continuance; District Court, status report concerning Baker Elementary; District Court, response to order filed November 30, 2001; District Court, order; District Court, response to order regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) March 15, 2001, compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, motion of approval for middle school site; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's third set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' opposition to motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, noltice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - DEC ? - 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORltlG DEC - 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAilHIFFoEP CLERK V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, request a continuance - of the discovery hearing in this case for the following reasons: 1. The above styled case is set for a discovery hearing on December 7, 2001. 2. Undersigned counsel has been in trial since Monday, December 3, 2001 in federal district court regarding the following case: Mercedes Alexander v. Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau, et al., Case No. LR-C-99-572. The trial is expected that this case will last for the remainder of week. 3. Because of this scheduling conflict and the need for additional time to comply with the court's previous order regarding the hearing scheduled for December 7, 2001, Joshua respectfully request that the discovery hearing be reset to a later date. 4. This continuance is not made for delay and will not prejudice the respective parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Joshua herein respectfully move that the Court enter an order granting their request for a continuance. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) QI) 374-4187 ~~~ , Bar No. 64046 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~~n mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this ./ -  day of December, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little.Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jo Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building t ittle Rock, AR 72201 ! I i   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ' STATUS REPORT CONCERNING BAKER ELEMENTARY RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At its October, 2001 Board meeting, the PCSSD Board of Directors reviewed and addressed the issues of school repair, school renovation and school construction in the PCSSD. 2. Because of the millage failure, the Board determined that it could address only the most critical repair projects confronting the District and ultimately voted to establish certain priorities, which priorities are reflected on the attached Exhibit \"A\". 3. Because of limited funds, the Board did not place any new construction at existing schools on this list. 4. In an allied matter, the District has also determined that the anonymous donation previously reported and to be used for the construction of a multi-purpose facility at Baker Elementary is now highly unlikely to materialize. Accordingly, the - administration has placed the construction of a multi-purpose facility at Baker on indefinite hold. 301206-v1 5. Absent the financial ability to fund any construction projects at Baker, the District proposes to simply continue with the Baker recruitment plan which was reported to the Court last summer. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ,. By , M. . orneys tol Pulaski nty Special ~rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 1, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 301206-v1 2 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 301206-v1 onesJ 3 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:29 AM FAX NO. Date October 9, 2001 Pass Fail Other ________ _ AGENDA ACTION FORM Pulaski County Special School District P, 02 Agenda Item Number: New Business - 5 Subject: Building Repair and Construction Priority List Prepared By: Dr. Donald J. Henderson, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Rationale: The Board has requested a prioritized list of potential building repairs and construction projects. The Administration submits the attached listing for roofing, HVAC, electrical, and carpet/tile projects as well as new construction projects. Cost: To be determined by School Board Funding Source: Recommendation: I move approval of the prioritized list of building repairs and construction as set by the Board. DEC-07-01 FRI 11:30 AH FAX NO. P. 03 ._. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTl~ICT Donr.ld J. Henderson, ED.D. Assistant Superintendent TO: lJr. Gary Smith, Superintendent FROM: Dr. Donald J. Henderson, Assistant Superintendent Support Services DATE: October 1,200) RE: 1. 2. 3. Potential Priority Facility Projects ROOFING PRO.JECTS North Pltlaski High Oak Grove Elementary Sylvan IIills Uigh Total HV AC PRO.TRCTS $ 900,000.00 $ 448,000.00 $1,022,000.00 $2,370,000.00 DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 4902227 fxt. 209 Fax: (501) 4~0-0483 1. 2. Baker Elementary Toll~son Elementary $ 13,000.00  R~-plncc 9-window units w/sp[it systems 1. 2. 3. $ 102.,_611.00  Rcph1.cc all window A/C units w/split sy5k ms Total $ 115,6ll.0O ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Jncksonville Elementary Oakbrookc Elementary Pinewt)Od Elementary Total S 281,000.00 S 267,000.00 ~ 275,000.00 $ 823,000.00 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:30 AM. FAX NO. P. 04 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I. 2. CARllE'f/TILE PROJECTS Cato Elementary Pinewood Elementary Oak Grove Iligh Jacksonville Junior High Sylvnn Hills High Replace carpel in all classrooms and offices. Tile main rntry, restroom entry areas and main offices area. $ 51,300.00 Replace carpet in all classrooms and offices. Tile main t'ntrance, cafeteria and main office area. S 49,400.00 Replace main office area with tile. Replace media center carpet. $ 8,500.00 Replace media center carpet and replace main office caT) )et with tile. S 6,950.00 Replace media center carpet. Replace front office carpet with tile. $ 5,775.00 Toh1l amount for carpet projects $121,925.00 (est.) RENOVATION SUBTOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJE~TS $ 3,-130,536.00 Crystal Hill Area North Pulaski High Build a 800 pupil middle school. $10,900,078.00 Option A: l3uild an athletic field house. Convert current training and locker rooms into 4-classrooms S 1,084,969.00 Option B: Build a. 4-classroom addition $ 600,000.00 NEW CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $12,585,047.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL FOR RENOVATIONS AND N:EW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS $16,015,583.00 l 0% Contingency $ 1,601.558.30 CRANJ) ESTIMATED TOT.AL .ll'l,617,14].~0 BALANCE IN BUILDING J.fUND, 8/30/01 $ 5,592,490.00 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:-30 AH FAX NO. Regular Board Meeting October 9, 2001 Page 4 New Fh1,5lness Election of Officers 10/9/01 Appointment Ex Offi cl o Secretary, Treasurer, and Legal Counsel 10/9/01 Approval of Bond Resolution 10/9/01 Lease of Land North Pulaski Recreation Committee 10/9/01 Approval of Prioritized Llst of Building Repairs and Construction . 10/9/01 Roll Call Vot~ Yeas: Manfredini, Roberts, Shaneyfelt, Tatum, Wilfiams Nays: O'Brien Mr. Sharpe acknowledged that the te.ims had met three times and that they did differ in t.'1elr opinion of the Board's charge. He said the team advised PASS to alter its request because the Board would net likely support the 6.8 percent salary, but the union refused to move from that position. Ms. Williams opened the election of officers by nominating  Mrs. Tatum fer President. Mrs. Tatum was elected President. Mr. O'Brien nominated Mrs. Roberts for Vice President Mrs. Roberts was elected Vice PresidenL Mrs. Tatum nominated Ms. Williams for Secretary. Mrs. Roberts nominated Mr. Shaneyfeit for Secretaiy, Ms. Williams was elected Secretary. Mr, O'Brien moved, seconded by Mr. Shaneyfelt, to appoint Superinlendent Gary Smith as ex officio fi11anclal secretary, Assistant Superintendent for Business/CFO John Archetko as treasurer, Wright Llnd$ey \u0026 Jennings, Skokos Bequette \u0026 Billingsley, ~nd Henry Osterloh as legal counsel. The motion carried . Mr, Shaneyfelt moved, seconded by Mr. O'Brien, approval of a resolution refunding the 1996 bond Issue for Interest savings and to award the bond sale to Morgan Stanley DW Inc. at an Interest rate of 4.4668 percent. The motion carried. See attachment, Mr. O'Brien moved, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, approval to lease 4.7 ao-es ln the Bayou Meta community to ttle North Pulaski Recreation Committee for six years at a payment of $1 per year, The motion carried. The Administration presented a prioritized list of the most urgent repairs needed at the District's schools. Toe repairs totaling $3.4 million Included roofing, HVAC, electrfcal and carpet/tile proj ects. Mr. O'Brien moved, seconded by Mrs. Tatum, approval or the prioritized list of building repairs induding roofing, HV/\\C, electrical, ,ind carpet/tile projects totaling $3.4 million to be paid from the building fund. The motion P. 05 DEC-07-01 FRI tl:30 AM FAX NO. Regular Board Meeting October 9, 2001 Page 5 f!QM.d Member CommcnJ,i  10/9/01 carried four (4) to two (2) In a roll call vote. See attachment. Roll Cail Vote Yeas: Manfredini, O'Brien, Roberts, Tatum Nays: Shaneyfelt, Williams Voting against the expenditure, Ms. Williams said the list of repairs was prepared without input from the Board. ' . Mr. O'Brien called tile plan for repai~ not much more than a Band-Aid, but said it shows that the District Is trying to address the most critical needs. Toe administration also listed as top priorities for construction an 800 pupil middle school in the Crystal Hill area and a fourclassrocrn addition to North Pulaski High. Toe Board directed Superintendent Smith to prepare a recommend.ition by the November Board meeting for ral5ing the $11 million _needed for those projects. Dr. Smit11 reported tl1at John Walker, altorney for the Joshua l nlervenors, discussed with the District's legal counsel the possibility of adding dassroom space at Baker Elementary, Mrs. Tatum expressed her appreciation for the dedication ceremony of the Mildred C. Tatum Media Center at Mills High. She sc1id she was truly humbled by the honor c1nd the recognition of her contribution as a school board member, She thanked the Board for their confidence in electing her as President. Mrs. Roberts extended congrutvlations to Oak Grove Elementary Principal Truett McCurry on being name a National Distinguished Principal. She .ilso congratulated Mary Ask, Pine Forest Elementary Principal, and her st.aff for their Improvement on the Benchmark Exams, Mr. Shaneyfelt announced that the schools In Zone 2 would host a reception to honor former Board Member Ruth Tucker at 2. p,m, on October 14. He congratulated Mrs. Tatum on her election as President and said he looked forward to working with her. Mr, Shaneyfelt s;;ld the Board valued PASS employees and that he was still prep.ired to recommend an increase in insurance benefits For the PASS group. P. 06 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 December 7, 2001 Mr. J arnes McCormick United States District Court Clerk 400 West Capitol, 4th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 DEC l. 0 2001 OFFICE OF OtSEGREGffflON MONITORf OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Re:4:CV820866SWW, Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al Dear Mr. McCormick: Enclosed please find pleading for filing. Also enclosed is a self addressed stamped envelope for the return of a file marked copy. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js Enclosures cc: Mr. Sam Jones Ms. Ann S. Marshall IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITJLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 30. 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2001 Off/Cf Of DESEGREGATIONAIJIJrlls PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for its' response - to the court's order dated November 30, 2001 . 1. On December 3, 2001 , undersigned counsel received a copy of the court 's order. 2. The parties have been attempting to address the issues in the spirit suggested by the court. The parties expect this matter resolved in an acceptable matter pendente lite. 3. Upon resolution, the parties will promptly inform the court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of this response has been sent to Mr. Sam Jones, Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Ms. Ann S. Marshall, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895, Little Rock, AR 72201. FILED _ U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ttB~T\"3 TR l: T A P '{J\\f\\l C::AS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEC 7 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES w. IVlC~U~, CLERK ay: \\ DEP.CLERK. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4 : 82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL 0 R D E R OfflCEOF J~ON MONITORINO INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors for a continuance of the discovery hearing scheduled for December 7 , 2001 , due to counsel ' s involvement in the trial of a nother matter. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has advised the Court that there is no objection to this request. Therefore , the motion will be granted . The discovery hearing in this matter is hereby continued and rescheduled for 2 :15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2001. The issues for this hearing will be as set forth in the Court ' s previous order which originally scheduled the discovery hearing . IT IS SO ORDERED this 71\\ day of December , 2001 . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/Om FRCP n N J ;-,;/{fl/ 0/ BY__._.~~\"4----- Chief United States District Judge 5 5 5 5013744187 WALKER LAl,J FI RM IN THE l,\"NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR.1CT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DTSTRlCT NO. l, ET AL 1\\1.RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER REGARDING LRSD'S MARCH 15, 2001 COM PLJANCE REPORT 088 P02 DEC 11 '01 17:44 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua lntervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for its' response to the court's order regarding areas for addit ional hearing dates and respectfully show the Court that it intends to show noncompliance by the Little Rock School District with respect to the following additional areas with respect to Lhe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: 1) Bad Faith - Section 2.1 2) Desegregation Experts - Sections 2.1.l 3) Extracurricular Activities - Section 2.6.l 4) Advanced Placement Courses - Section 2.6.l 5) Guidance \u0026 Counseling - Section 2.11 6) Achievement - Section 2. 7 7) Student Assignment/ Racial Balance - Sections 3,1 and 3.8 8) Middle Schools - Section 3.4 5013744187 l,JALKER LAl,.J F IRM 088 P03 DEC 11 '01 17:44 9) School Closing/Construction - Section 3.6 10) Housi11g - Section 3.9 11) lnterdistrict Schools - Section 4.0 12) Incentive Schools - Section 5.5 13) Alternative Education - Section 5,6 14) Compliance Program - Section 6.0 15) Plan Modification - Section 7.0 16) Programs, Policies and Procedures - Section 8.3 Since the burden of proof is upon Joshua, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court allow an additional three weeks in order for it to submit its proof with respect to the aforementioned areas. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501 -374-4 l 87(fax) ~w~tK~~ CERTlFTCA TE OF SERVICE l do hereby that certify that a copy of the foregoing been hand delivered to all counsel of record on this 11 th day of December. 200 I . 5013744187 l,JAU\u003cEP LAl,J FIRM 088 P01 DEC 11 '01 17:44 JOHN W WALJ(ER~ P.A . .. A .. ti:omey C1.t L1.W 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 F-1:c (501) 371-4:187 FA .X. TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOUW RECEIVE [ 3 (including coJ1er shet:t)J PAGE(S), LNCLUDING THIS COv-:ER SHEET IF YOU DO 1VOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u003c(501) 374-3758\u003e\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential informac.ibn intended only for the use of che individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible co deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby no tilled t.ha1 any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ff you have received this communication in error, please in1mediate notify us by telephone, and return che original message to us at the above address via the: U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEC f 2 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JA_MES 'f\": ~MACK, CLERK By. \\ , [\\J\\A ~ D CLERK Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW /. ( l .RECEIVED DtC 1 7 2001. OfRCEOF DE88MATION IIONITORJN6 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR JANUARY 28, 2002 HEARING On December 11 , 2001 , the Court held a scheduling and discovery hearing in this matter, and established the following. The following issues, listed in order of priority to the Court, will be addressed at the January 28, 2002 hearing: (1) Student Achievement; (2) Advanced Placement; (3) Guidance and Counseling; and ( 4) Extra-curricular Activities. Joshua and the LRSD shall have an equal amount of time for their presentations, and may contact the Court's staff to determine the amount of time that will be available to them. On or before December 29, 2001 , counsel for Joshua and the LRSD shall meet to exchange exhibits and exhibit lists. On or before January 12, 2002, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD shall exchange witness lists. .On or before January 21, 2002, the parties shall exchange final witness lists and final exhibit lists, exchanging any additional exhibits, if necessary. The final witness lists shall include only witnesses who were listed on the January 12, 2002 witness lists (no additional witnesses may be added after that date). In conducting discovery prior to the January 28, 2002 hearing, the parties shall have up to and including five days to respond to a discovery request. All discovery requests shall be made such that responsive materials will be provided before January 21 , 2002. On every occasion the parties exchange exhibit lists, witness lists, and exhibits under this Order, the parties shall provide the Court with exact copies of these lists and exhibits. If a party intends to refer to an exhibit already in the record, in place of exchanging the exhibit or providing it to the Court, the party shall specify the exhibit, including the document number and page number where appropriate. Toe parties are directed to provide exhibits to the Court in paper form; exhibits may not be provided on diskette or CD-rom without the express permission of the Court. The Court will be available to the parties during this discovery period, and the parties should not hesitate to contact the Court if the Court's intervention becomes necessary. f(__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /;J__ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001 I ~~! ~4: HIBFJUDGE \" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/O~ FRCP ON IJ, 13-0 / gy_m_:__ _ 2 REC IVED OEC 1 7 2001 - --QfflC-Etf - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks a determination by this Court that Plan 2000 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of the Town of Maumelle. 2. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum which more fully sets forth the bases for this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a declaration of this Court that Plan 2000 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of Maumelle, Arkansas and for all proper relief. 302820-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~? ,c,____ es Ill ) ulaski ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 13, 2001, 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, Ark.ansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 302820-v1 ones 1110 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO .. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEC 1? zom r-lGEGF ~Tf ON.:flON\"OR/N(I. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUMINSUPPORTOFPCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The Specific Relief Sought The PCSSD seeks by this motion to have this Court interpret the literal language of Plan 2000 which states in pertinent part that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built.\" The new elementary school has been built and named Bates. By this motion, the PCS SD seeks a declaration of this Court that a middle school located within the Maumelle city limits is in fact permitted pursuant to Plan 2000. While the PCSSD will enumerate below the steps it has taken in respect of a site in Maumelle, the PCSSD also states that steps related to the selection and approval of a geographically specific site have not yet taken place. For instance, the PCSSD has - not yet consulted the administrations of the Little Rock and North Little Rock School Districts, the PCSSD has not yet submitted a proposed site to its bi-racial committee for 301134-v1 - consideration, no specific site has been finalized and no recent public meetings have been held in the Maumelle and Oak Grove Communities, the District has yet to form a site selection bi-racial committee which include representatives of the LRSD, the NLRSD and the Joshua lntervenors, and the ODM has not yet been specifically consulted concerning a specific site. None of this has been done pending obtaining the Court's views upon the matter specifically as they relate to Plan 2000. No specific site has been proposed, both because the PCSSD needs and desires the interpretation of this Court and because selection of a specific site at this time would likely artificially elevate the acquisition cost. Accordingly, and absent any other specific information at this time, the motion of the PCSSD is very simple, to-wit: May it explore and ultimately propose to this Court a - middle school site located within the city limits of Maumelle? A Brief History 1. Pine Forrest Elementary School remains the only PCSSD school within the city limits of Maumelle. Pine Forrest Elementary School was built in 1980. The present capacity of the school as used this year is 556.. Maumelle was incorporated in 1985 with a population of 4,359. Today, the population of Maumelle is approximately 10,557. 2. Since its inception as a town in the 1960s, junior and senior high students from Maumelle have all been bused to Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School. As noted in previous filings with this Court, the PCSSD desires to convert Oak Grove into a 9-12 high school and to construct a middle school to substitute for the current Oak Grove - Junior High School. 301134-v1 2 3. Currently, Pine Forrest Elementary, which would jettison its sixth grade under this proposal, can accommodate only 63% of K-6 children residing in Maumelle. The remainder are currently bused to either Crystal Hill Elementary or Oak Grove Elementary. Under this proposal, both Crystal Hill and Oak Grove Elementary would become K-5 schools. The Site Selection Process 4. Plan 2000 specifically provides that, \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built.\" 5. Certain leaders of the Maumelle Community have proposed that a site located on Count Massie Road be secured for the construction of a new middle school. - This site qualifies as a racially neutral site because it is located in a larger commercial area and is not bounded by any neighborhood and contains no \"housing stock\". 6. This possible site would fall within a line that can currently be drawn between the new Maumelle Charter School located within a densely populated residential area of Maumelle and Central Arkansas Christian which is located north of Crystal Hill Elementary School. This site would enable the PCSSD to more directly and efficiently compete with both the privately run charter school and Central Arkansas Christian. Both schools currently draw significant numbers of middle school age children from the Maumelle area. 7. The property currently owned by the PCSSD adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary would be sold to help defray acquisition and construction costs of the new middle school. 301134-v1 3 - 8. To accommodate current M to M sixth graders at Crystal Hill and to otherwise help realize a fully intergraded middle school, the PCSSD would reserve 100 seats at the new middle school for M to M students. 9. The PCSSD Board of Directors voted 6 to Oto seek approval for a school located within Maumelle at their meeting held on November 13, 2001 . 10. Face to face communications have been had with counsel for Joshua as regards a new middle school located within Maumelle. Advantages of a Maumelle Site 11. Overall, the PCSSD believes that the proposed site will reduce busing and the attendant transportation expense. 12. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to complete its conversion to - the middle school system and will relieve over-crowding at the land-locked Oak Grove Campus. 13. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to establish an interdistrict middle school offering more choices and grade levels particularly for those LRSD students who currently attend Crystal Hill Elementary. 14. The PCSSD believes that the location and construction of this school will finally pave the way to secure support for millage increases in the Maumelle area, a very practical and necessary matter for the PCSSD to achieve. The PCSSD proposes to construct the school with a capacity of 1,000 students providing room not only for the 100 seats reserved for M to M students, but also space for students who can be attracted from the charter school, private schools and children who are currently being home-schooled. 301134-v1 4 15. The PCSSD proposes to begin construction by October 2002 so that the new facility can be open for education by August 2003. 16. The PCSSD proposes to pay for the acquisition and the construction of the school by a new bond issue or by re-financing existing debt. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve the concept of a new middle school located within Maumelle which would reserve 100 seats for M to M transfer students and for all proper relief. 301134-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Special 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 13, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 301134-v1 6 RECEIVED DEC 1 7 200\\ - 0ff\\Ct0F DESEGREGATION MONITORINB INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FILED EAsTMR 5 rii ~,i~~'g ~~~~sAs DEC f 3 2001 vs. * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER The Court is in receipt of Joshua's response to this Court's Order of November 30, 2001 , - in which Joshua states the parties are still attempting to resolve the matters raised in Joshua's motion for relief from Orders entered on April 27, 2000 and May 9, 2001 by Gary Smith [docket no. 3473]. The Court hereby directs Joshua to inform the Court on or before February 15, 2002 whether it is necessary for the Court to rule on this motion or whether the motion should be removed from the Court's docket. If the Court does not hear from Joshua by that date, the Court will assume that Joshua intends the motion be removed from the Court's docket. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /(3 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001 c~~JX+t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1318","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-11-20"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Court records","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1318"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1376","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-11-19"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1376"],"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":["97 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1714","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to disqualify Judge Susan Webber Wright","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":["2001-11-16"],"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","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration","Court records","Judicial process"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to disqualify Judge Susan Webber Wright"],"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/1714"],"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":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  J:.a~;..~- DISTRICT COURT -~ Cl1N DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR1CT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS NOV 16 2001 WESTER.i\"l DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL !.\",:~.;rv:: \\~.1 : ~ ':17.~ ' r '-  .. MEMORANDUM BRJEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JAMESw M By:  cCORMACK, CLERK bi:Pc.!lRR' PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Disqualification of federal justices, judges and magistrates is governed in part by 28 U.S.C.  455, which provides as follows in subsection (a): Any justice,judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himselfin any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Inliljebergv. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100L.Ed.2d 855 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification of a trial judge who was a trustee of a university which had an interest in the case, notwithstanding the trial judge had no personal knowledge of the transaction at issue and did not attend a meeting of the trustees where the transaction was discussed. The Court held that scienter was not an element ofa  455(a) violation, stating that disqualification \"does not depend upon whether or not the judge actually knew of facts creating an appearance of impropriety, so long as the public might reasonably believe that he or she -1- knew.\" 486 U.S. at 860. Commenting on the connection between the important public policy of confidence in the judiciary and the appropriate inquiry under 455(a), the Court stated: Id. at 864-865. The problem ... is that people who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of judges. The very purpose of  455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible. Thus, it is critically important in a case of this kind to identify the facts that might reasonably cause an objective observer to question [the judge's] impartiality. Section 455(a) is not concerned with actual bias. \"Disqualification is required ifareasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge's impartiality, even though no actual bias or prejudice has been shown.\" Gray v. University of Arkansas, 883 F.2d 1394, 1398 (8th Cir. 1989) ( citing United States v. Poludniak, 657 F .2d 948 (8th Cir. 1981 )). See also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (stating that grounds for disqualification under 455(a) should be \"evaluated on an objective basis, so that what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance\"). In United States v. Tucker, 78 F .3d 1313 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the dismissal of an indictment brought by the Independent Counsel against Governor Tucker and ordered that the case be reassigned on remand to a different judge. The Court relied upon \"the high profile of the Independent Counsel's work and of this case in particular,\" together with newspaper articles establishing connections between the trial judge, the President and Mrs. Clinton and Governor Tucker. 78 F.3d at 1325. The Court cited 28 U.S.C.  2106 as authority for the reassignment order, but incorporated and applied the \"appearance of impartiality\" standard from  455(a). Id. at 1324. -2- In In re Boston's Children First, 244 F .3d 164 (1st Cir. 200 I), involving a challenge to - elementary school assignments based upon race, the First Circuit ordered the disqualification of the trial judge under 455(a) due to public comments on the case. In response to criticism that she had certified a class in prior litigation before resolving standing issues, but had failed to immediately certify a class in the pending case, the judge made the following statements to the local newspaper: In the [prior] case, there was no issue as to whether [the plaintiffs] were injured. It was absolutely clear every woman had a claim. This is a more complex case. 244 F.3d at 166. While making clear that there was no finding of actual bias or violation of ethical responsibilities by the trial judge, the Court noted that the school assignment program was a matter of significant local concern and that the judge's comments were reasonably open to misinterpretation. The Court further found that \"a reasonable person might interpret [the judge's] comments as a preview of a ruling on the merits of petitioner's motion for class certification, despite the fact that defendants had not yet filed a response to that motion.\" Id. at 170. Assuming that the trial judge's comments in In re B?ston 's Children First reasonably could be understood as a preview of her ruling on class certification, the comments were, at the most, subtle and indirect. Indeed, in denying a petition for rehearing en bane, the Court acknowledged that disqualification was a close question on the facts before it and that disqualification under 455(a) . generally required a \"case-by-case determination.\" Id. at 171 . Comparison \\vith the instant case is instructive, however, because the comments of the Court as reported in the Arkansas Times article were neither subtle nor indirect. Just as in In re Boston's Children First, the Court's comments here addressed a case pending before her on a matter of significant public concern. Unlike In re Boston's Children First, the Court's comments appear to take direct aim at the soon-to-be-filed Compliance -3- Report, the issue of the LRSD's unitary status and the possible end of court supervision. There is hardly any need for interpretation with regard to the Court's intentions or expectations concerning the future progress of the case. The fact that the Court's meaning was reasonably clear to those present is indicated by the reported reaction. Some parents of public school children expressed \"dismay\" at the Court's remarks. Others received the same comments with \"boisterous applause.\" Finally, subsequent developments in the case have given the LRSD reasonable grounds to believe that the Federal Monitor may have pre-judged the issue of unitary status and that, regardless of the Monitor's personal opinions and conclusions, the Monitor may have become an evidentiary source on the merits of unitary status through her ex parte communications with the Court. These facts have come to light through the events surrounding the Court's decision to allow the ODM monitors to function, not as a facilitating participant in the remedial process, as directed by the Revised Plan( 10), but as potential adverse witnesses. In addition to supporting the suggestion of an appearance of partiality under 455( a), the ex parte communications are separately disqualifying pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(l) and Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, 175 F.R.D. 363, 367 (1998). In Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit disqualified a trial judge in litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois mental health system. The Court found that at least one ex parte meeting betweei: the judge and the members of a court-appointed panel of mental health experts had addressed the merits of the case. The Court noted that the \"discussions in chambers were calculated, material, and wholly unnecessary\" and that two members of the panel had become partisan by their public criticisms of the state's mental health system. 93 F.3d at 259- 260. Compare Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 195 F.3d 465, -4- 493 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding no evidence that the district court had relied upon a court-appointed technical advisor as \"a source of evidence\"); and Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 105 F.3d 1208, 1211-1212 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting with approval a ruling by the district court that court-ordered negotiations between a settlement coordinator and the parties \"would be confidential from the court and outside parties\"). Significantly, the trial court in Edgar v. K.L. refused to allow the defendants to discover the content of the ex parte communications and invoked a \"judicial privilege\" with respect to them. The Seventh Circuit ruled: 93 F.3d at 258. The judge did not elaborate on the nature, extent, or legal support for his claim of \"judicial privilege,\" but a phrase of that kind usually refers to the deliberative process. No privilege covers arrangement of administrative details ... To invoke a privilege is therefore to confess that the discussions covered the substance of potential testimony and the conduct of the litigation - and if this is not so in fact, it is nonetheless what we must assume, because no evidence in the record undermines the inferences naturally to be drawn from the outline for the September 7 meeting. Likewise, in the present case, the Court has invoked a privilege with respect to the ex parte conversations between the Court and the Federal Monitor and has prohibited the LRSD from discovering from the Federal Monitor the content of those conversations. The Court's shielding of the ex parte conversations from discovery by the LRSD, while permitting the ODM monitors to testify as potential adverse witnesses against the LRSD, together with the statements attributed to the Federal Monitor concerning the merits of the case and the probable intentions or reactions of the Court to developments in the case, supports a reasonable inference that the conYersations addressed the merits of unitary status and were unfavorable to the LRSD. See also United States v. Craven, -5- 239 F.3d 91, 103 (1st Cir. 2001) (vacating a sentence influenced by the trial court's ex parte contacts - with a court-appointed expert, remanding for sentencing before a different judge, and noting that \"it is difficult, if not impossible, for a judge, no matter how sincere, to purge that [ ex parte] information from her mind - and, equally, to maintain the perception of impartiality\"). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and in order to rigorously maintain the appearance as well as the reality of impartiality in this important case in the public interest, the LRSD respectfully prays for the voluntary or mandatory disqualification of Judge Wright from further responsibility in the case and for the reassignment of this case to another judge of the District Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) Robert S. Shafer (#81141) First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY~ -6- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on November 16, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 C 'TE:-.iP'GWVicweMlrsd J wpd -7- 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 - 24 25 Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL NOV 1 6 ZOOi Vffi:~~ ~;; OESEGfiEGATiO~J MLl~liDRme PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS ' INTERVENORS INTERVENORS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORAL DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHA.LL (Taken November 14 , 2001) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES : On Behalf of the Plaintiff MR. CHRIS HELLER and MR. CLAY FENDLEY Friday , Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol , Suite 2000 Little Rock , Arkansas 72201 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 )4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2  25 On Behalf of North Little Rock School District MR. J. ALLEN CARNEY Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Lirtle Rock, Arkansas 7220 I On Behalf of Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua, el al MR. JOHN WALKER Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Lirtle Rock, Arkansas 72201 ALSO PRESENT: JOY SPRINGER, TAMMY DOWNS INDEX TOPIC PAGE Stipulations 4 Witness Sworn In: Ann Marshall 5 Examination by Mr. Heller Examination by Mr. Walker Further Examination by Mr. Heller Further Examination by Mr. Walker Reporter's Certificate 133 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 EXHIBITS 23 23 23 24 24 80 5 118 125 129 (Exhibits Attached Following Transcript.) Page2 Page 3 Page 4 I ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHALL, a witness 2 produced at the request of the Plaintiff; taken in the 3 above-styled and numbered cause on Wednesday, the 14th 4 day of November, 200 I, before Jerry R. Lawson, CCR, a 5 Notary Public in and for Jefferson County, Arkansas, 6 commencing at 2:40 p.m., at the offices of Friday, 7 Eldredge \u0026 Clark, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, 8 Little Rock Arkansas 72201, pursuant to the agreement 9 hereinafter. se.t .fo.rt.h.. .... STIPULATIONS 10 II 12 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED BY and between the 13 parties through their respective counsel that the I 4 deposition of ANN MARSHALL may be taken for any and all I 5 purposes according to the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .......... I PROCEEDINGS 2 WHEREUPON, 3 Ai\"lN MARSHALL, Page 5 4 having been called for examination by counsel for the 5 Plaintiff, and having first been duly sworn, was 6 examined and testified as follows: 7 EXM1INATION 8 BY l'v1R. HELLER: 9 Q. Would you tell us your name and address, please, 10 Ms. Marshall. 11 A. Ann Marshall, I RiYiera Circle, Little Rock, 12 Arkansas. 13 Q. Okay. And how are you employed? 14 A. I'm a desegregation monitor for Judge Susan Webber 15 Wright. 16 Q. Would you review for us briefly your education. 17 A. I have an undergraduate from Hendrix College in 18 English. I have an advanced degree in volunteer 19 management from the Arkansas Public Administration 20 Consortium. I'm certified in planning and training 2 I with the Institute of Cultural Affairs. I'm a 22 certified master trainer with the National Association 23 of Partners in Education, which is headquartered in 24 Washington, D.C. 25 Q. Do you have any other certifications relating to 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Page 6 Page 8 1 the field of education? I Q. Prior to the time you assumed your position as the 2 A. Not that are current. 2 director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, 3 Q. Have you previously been certified in the field of 3 what was your highest salary, approximately? 4 education? 4 A. I don't recall. Are you saying as an associate in 5 A. Yes. 5 the -- 6 Q. What certifications did you hold? 6 Q. Well, let's say -- 7 A. English. 7 A. -- Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? 8 Q. Okay. And you're certified to teach English? 8 Q. -- before you went to work for the Office of the 9 A. Yes. 9 Metropolitan Supervisor, what was the highest paying 10 Q. And would you review briefly your employment 10 job you held? 11 history. 11 A. Probably coordinator of Volunteers in Public 12 A. How long do you want me to go -- how far would you 12 Schools and Partners in Education. 13 like for me to go back? 13 Q. And approximately what did that pay? 14 Q. Well, let's -- 14 A. I have no recollection, Chris. I could -- 15 A. Do you want me to start now and go backwards? 15 somewhere probably in the high 40's. I'm not sure. I 16 Q. Let's start at the beginning of the things related 16 It's been a long time. 17 to education. 17 Q. And do you recall what your beginning salary was 18 A. I taught English and science in Forrest City from 18 with the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? 19 approximately 1 970 to 1972. I moved to Little Rock 19 A. No, I don't. :, 20 and was the -- no, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. I was 20 Q. Okay. Do you recall what your beginning salary 21 an order editor for Eaton Hoisting Equipment in 21 was as director of the Office of Desegregation 22 Forrest City for approximately a year and a half. Then 22 Monitoring? 23 I moved to Little Rock, and I was the first woman 23 A. I believe it was ninety-eight five in that -- 24 employed as an epidemiologist in the field of venereal 24 perhaps ninety-eight. I don't recall exactly. But 25 disease for the State Health Department. 25 that's close. Page 7 Page 9 l Then I joined the Little Rock School District as 1 Q. So, you've never ,vorked as a school administrator, 2 the coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. I was 2 principal or assistant principal or an)1hing like 3 in that position until approximately 1984, '85, when I 3 that? 4 was employed by the Arkansas Department of Education as 4 A. I've worked as an administrator in a school 5 a coordinator to de,elop the Arkansas School Volunteer 5 district by virtue ofmy emplo)ment, on the 6 Program. I remained in that position for about a 6 administrative salary scale, in Partners in Education; ,. 7 year. 7 but I have not been a principal or an assistant '; 8 I returned to the Little Rock School District as 8 principal. : 9 coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. Also 9 Q. Have you received any training from the Arkansas ,: 10 during that time, I was coordinator of Partners in 10 Department of Education related to their new ACT AP 11 Education. I was employed by Mr. Revelle as an 11 system and benchmark exams or Smart Start or anything 12 associate monitor in the Office of Metropolitan 12 related to that new state curriculum standards and 13 Supervisor beginning in 1989. '88 or '89. And since 13 benchmarks? 14 that time with the conversion of the office to the 14 A. Training -- can you be a little bit more specific? 15 Office of Desegregation Monitoring, I've been employed 15 Q. Well, was there any formal training that you 16 steadily, assuming the position of monitor in April of 16 attended to learn about the ACT AP standards or the 17 199 1. 17 benchmark exams? 18 Q. Okay. Did you teach in Forrest City for one year 18 A. I think the sessions that I attended would be more 19 or two years? 19 accurately called awareness sessions. To me, there is 20 A. Approximately a year and a half. 20 a distinction between awareness and training. But I 21 Q. Okay. And which school or school district did 21 did attend a session that wJs to begin to help people 22 you -- 22 understand what was coming. 23 A. Forrest AcadeJT.y. 23 Q. Do you know whether or not ADE offers any formal 2-l Q. -- teach in? 24 training related to the implementation of ACT AP, the 25 A. It was Forrest /..cademy. It was a private school. 25 benchmark exams or the curriculum standards? .. 3 (Pages 6 to 9) Poge 10 1 A. Yes, they do for the -- for the State's teachers 2 and administrators. 3 Q. Has anyone in your office received such training? 4 A. I believe that Gene Jones has attended sessions. 5 Q. How would you describe your relationship with 6 Judge Wright? 7 A. She's my supervisor. 8 Q. Do you ever see Judge Wright socially? 9 A. As far as -- ,veil, I see her at lunch. We share 10 lunch. She's in -- it's her custom to take staff 11 members to lunch for their birthdays, and I'm asked to 12 join that. She and I attend the same church; and so we 13 occasionally will see each other at services, although 14 she tends to go to the early service and I tend to go 15 to the later one. 16 Q. Okay. Have you been to her home or has she been 17 to your home? 18 A. I was -- she's never been to my home. I was in 19 her home approximately maybe eight or nine years ago. 20 It's been a long time. 21 Q. And has Judge Wright ever been to your offices? 22 A. She's been to the new offices one time, to see 23 them. And before that in our old offices when we were 24 over at the River l\\larket, she was also there one time, 25 to see -- just to see what we've done with the space. Poge 11 l 2 Q. Besides your office and her chambers, what places have you been together with the judge? 3 A. To lunch. Q. Do you consider Judge Wright to be a friend? A. A colleague. 4 5 6 Q. Do you .ever discuss family or personal matters 7 with her? 8 A. Well, I think that the judge was clear yesterday 9 that what passes between us is privileged. So, I guess IO I would hesitate to go there. 11 Q. Well, I'm not asking you what may have been said 12 in that regard but only whether or not you and the 13 judge have such discussions. 14 A. 1n general terms. She has a school-age child and 15 I have school-age children. So, comments in a general 16 nature. 17 Q. Did she discuss with you her decision about 18 whether or not to put her child in private school? 19 MR. W Al.KER: Objection -- 20 A. No. 21 MR. W Al.KER: -- to that. I don't think 22 23 24 25 that would be a proper subject for inquiry, and l would just flag that for presentation to the judge for inquif}'. And I would suggest to you -- I'm not Page 12 1 telling you what to do, because I'm not 2 representing you. But I would suggest to you 3 that's not within the scope of what she told 4 Chris that he could talk about. 5 THE REPORTER: She told what? 6 rvm.. WALKER: Chris that he could inquire 7 into. 8 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 9 NIB.. HELLER: Well, unless I heard 10 incorrectly -- 11 A. I said \"no.\" 12 Q. (By Mr. Heller) Have you ever asked the judge for 13 legal or personal advice on any matters? 14 A. Never. 15 Q. Have you ever made any public appearances with her 16 or worked on any speeches for her or anything like 17 that? 18 A. I don't know ifwe are where we're supposed to be; 19 but I certainly don't llllnd telling you, no. 20 Q. How would you define your job? 21 A. Hard. 22 Q. Could you give us the expanded version? 23 A. Sometimes harder than others. My role is to 24 assist the Court in monitoring the school case. 25 Q. And how do you go about that? P,ge 13 I A. Well, a number of approaches. Primarily we 2 monitor in three main modes. We review a number of 3 documents that are produced by the school districts, 4 some on a routine basis, others may be exceptional in 5 nature. We make visits to the schools, and we -- we 6 observe. We look around. And thirdly, we will talk to 7 individuals. Sometimes those people call us, 8 unsolicited phone calls. But those are the three 9 primary modes by which we collect information. IO Sometimes we will target a specific topic by 11 virtue of perhaps a provision in the desegregation 12 plan, an issue that has become prollllnent by one means 13 or another. And then oftentimes we will make a formal 14 written report to the Court. And, of course, you've 15 had -- you've seen a number of those documents. 16 Q. What's the purpose of assisting the Court in 17 monitoring a school case? 18 A. To enable the Court to fulfill -- 19 MR. WALKER: Justa -- 20 A. -- its charge. 21 MR. \\V ALKER: -- moment. I'm going to 22 object to that, too. That -- that is 23 something that the Court can only determine 2  and the Court of Appeals and that 's already 25 specific:illy reduced to writing. 4 (Pages IO to I 3) Page 14 Page 16 I Now, if there is another purpose that I had - I'm -- that's been so long. But I started to - 2 Ms. Brown -- Marshall has identified and 2 say I think that it was perhaps based on that of the 3 reduced to writing and the Court has agreed 3 Metropolitan Supervisor, but I don't have direct 4 on and it's pretty clear, then I don't think 4 knowledge of that. : 5 that there would be any objection to her 5 Q. Okay. Do you know -- so, are you saying that this ,; 6 answering that. But other than that, I think 6 job description you're referring to was in existence ,, 7 that that's a question properly -- a question 7 when you assumed the office? I, 8 more properly directed to the Court. 8 A No, not the same job description. It was 9 Q. (By Mr. Heller) Let me tell you this, Ms. Brown, 9 certainly modified after the Eighth Circuit's ruling, 10 since I believe that before we went on the record -- IO and -- and I don't have any direct knowledge. 11 I'm sorry, Ms. Marshall -- before we went on the 11 Q. Okay. How is your job described in that 12 record, you said you had not been deposed before, 12 document? 13 correct? 13 A I haven't looked at it in years, and I didn't ,, 14 A. I don't ever remember having been deposed. 14 review it for today. I didn't anticipate that ,; 15 Q. Okay. Well, the way this works is Mr. Walker can 15 question. 16 make objections for the record, but you will still be 16 Q. Is it a document that Judge Wright has approved in 17 required to answer the question unless you personally 17 any way, to your knowledge? \" 18 decide not to. But he's not your lawyer. 18 A. As far as I know, it's -- it came from her 19 MR: W Al.KER: That's right. 19 office. 20 A. I understand that. 20 Q. Have you ever discussed your job description with : 21 Q. (By Mr. Heller) I suppose he can advise you not 21 Judge Wright? 22 to answer a question, but it's up to us whether or not 22 A Years ago when I was hired, yes. 23 to do that, so -- 23 Q. Has your job description changed over the years? 24 A. Well, I really don't -- 24 A You mean the written document? 25 MR. WALKER: Ms. Marshall -- 25 Q. Well, first the written document, has that -- when - Page I 5 Page 17 1 A. -- !mow the protocol. 1 is the last time the wTitten document was changed? 2 MR. WALKER: -- I would -- I would ask 2 A. I don't know that it has changed. 3 on that kind of question you recess the 3 Q. Has it changed in the last five years, to your 4 deposition to let the Court answer that 4 knowledge? 5 question or be directed, because you're not 5 A. I don't believe so. 6 represented by counsel. But you have to -- 6 Q. Do you ever have discussions with Judge Wright 7 of course, like he says, you have to exercise 7 about exactly what your job is and what you're trying 8 your own choice. 8 to accomplish? './ 9 A. I do know that the judge is available should we 9 A Well, certainly we'd discuss what it is that my IO need a ruling; but candidly, this is a new procedure 10 job is. She is my supervisor, and I report to her. I I for me and I don't understand the -- I don't know the 11 Q. Well, can you relate any discussions you've had 12 protocol. 12 about what your job is with Judge Wright? 13 Q. (By Mr. Heller) Well, my only question is that 13 A No. I guess perhaps I don't understand your 14 you described your job as assisting the Court in 14 question. I'm not trying to be coy. I'm just trying 15 monitoring the school case; and my question is: To 15 to understand what you're saying. 16 what end? What's the -- what's the purpose of that 16 Q. Well, I'm trying to understand what the 17 work? 17 understanding is between you and Judge Wright about 18 A. In order to supply information to the parties and 18 what your job is. And if it's accurately described in 19 to the Court th:it can be helpful. particularly in 19 a written job description, if you can tell me about 20 promoting compli:ince with the commitments that the 20 that; or if it's not, you can tell me about whatever 21 parties have made. 21 discussions you've had with the judge. 22 Q. Okay. Do you have a written job description? 22 A. I believe that it's correctly embodied in the job 23 A. I do. 23 description. And I don't ha\\e th:it with me, but it's - 24 Q. Where did that come from? 24 something that's availabh::. 25 A. I believe that it was a modification of what 25 Q. \\V ell, is there an)1hing that you recall about it .... .. S (Pages 14 to 17) Page 18 Page20 1 or can relate now about the understanding between you 1 disqualify the Court. 2 with Judge Wright about what your job is? 2 MR. HELLER: You are not required to sit 3 MR. WALKER: Well, let me say one other 3 here. 4 thing. As I understand it, this is about to 4 MR. WALKER: So, I suggest that we  5 get information in preparation for the 5 recess the hearing and call the judge. I 6 hearing on Monday. It is not to deal with 6 suggest we do that. \\ 7 the question of disqualification, since 7 MR. HELLER: There's no reason to. : 8 Mr. Heller was not ambitious enough, if -- if 8 MR. WALKER: Ms. Brown, do you mind -- 9 courageous enough to make a motion to recuse 9 Ms. Marshall, do you mind doing that? 10 the Court. 10 THE WITNESS: Well, actually considering 11 So, I ask, Ms. Brown, that you limit 11 what J'ye just told you, this varies 12 your questions or -- or that you call the 12 considerably from what I had been given to I 13 judge to see whether your questions should be 13 undermnd by you yesterday. So, perhaps ., 14 limited to matters that relate to the 14 that will be best thing to do. \u003c :: 15 evidentiary hearing that is set for the 19th 15 MR. WALKER: The deposition notice says :; 16 and the 20th. 16 one thing and what Mr. Heller said in court 17 lfhe wishes to challenge the Court and 17 is another thing, and they both have to be 18 her authority based on her personal 18 taken together. And the Court -- 19  relationship with you or anything else, 19 MR. HELLER: You're absolutely 20 he'll have ample time beyond the time to 20 incorrect. I pointed out to the Court that 21 prepare that we are supposed to be spending 21 you were ,,Tong when you suggested that I 22 getting prepared for this hearing on Monday. 22 wanted ro take these depositions about what 23 MR. HELLER: Well, if you'll read the 23 their testimony might be. I pointed out in 24 deposition subpoena, it's limited to matters 24 court -- and it will show up in the 25 concerning Ms. Bro,m's relationship to the 25 transcri pt -- that we specifically asked to Page 19 Page 21 1 Court, not what her testimony might be on I take these depositions concerning the 2 Monday. And that's what we intend to 2 communications benveen the Court and the ' 3 pursue. 3 monitor's office. 4 A. From our conversations yesterday, Chris, what I 4 MR. \\VALKER: Well, that's concerning the 5 understood you intended to ask me was about documents 5 hearin g on Monday: and she said very clearly 6 that I had shared with the Court, which I've prepared. 6 on the issues that are before the Court on -- ' 7 Any other area, I have not reviewed. 7 on Monday and Tuesday, she can only -- := 8 Q. (By Mr. Heller) Okay. Well, I -- and I 8 Ms. Bro\\\\11's -- or i\\ls. Marshall's testimony  9 understand that, and I'm just asking you for as much as 9 can only relate to the issues that she told  IO you can remember about these issues. And we're 10 us both that we could present. 1 l certainly going to talk about the documents, but our 11 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm happy to share 12 purpose is to talk about the communications generally 12 what documents I found, Chris; but my \" 13 and the relationship generally between your office and 13 understanding was that that was the thrust of 14 Judge Wright. 14 your inquiry. And since I don't -- I'm not 15 MR. WALKER: Well, let us -- I would 15 represented by any counsel and I'm not eager 16 like to suggest that we recess the hearing 16 to be in the middle of a disagreement between 17 and call the judge. My understand is that we 17 you two. maybe the best thing would be to 18 weren't to be wasting time on matters that 18 call Jud ge Wright. 19 the Court is not going to be addressing at 19 MR. HELLER: Well, let's -- before we do ' 20 this hearing. Even t11ough she said you could 20 that, let's at least take a look at the 21 depose her, I don't t11ink I w:mt to be 21 documents that you\\e brought with you in 22 sitting in a room listening to you take the 22 response to the deposition subpoena. 23 time that we're supposed to be spending 23 A. Two that l\\e sent to the Court -- and these 24 preparing for tri:il on the 19th :ind 20th, 24 actually went 10 Julie, and I sent those today :ind they 25 trying to -- for you to tind ways to try to 25 ,vere the comrnunic:ition that -- thank you, Tammy -- I 6 (Pages I 8 lo 21) Pge 22 I got from you, saying that the documents still weren't 2 ready, so I informed Julie. Whether those were shared 3 with the judge, I truly do not know. But I did send 4 them to the Court, because we're responsible for 5 organizing the documents and I can't get my work done 6 without them, so I notified my boss "}],"pages":{"current_page":14,"next_page":15,"prev_page":13,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":156,"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}}]}}