{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1785","title":"Court filings regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court motion to withdraw as counsel and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of 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":["2007-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Finance","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","School discipline","School facilities","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Teachers","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court motion to withdraw as counsel and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of 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/1785"],"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":["33 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\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, letter order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    FILEBiRT ~ii:i ~W~+ ARl\u0026lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 17 1001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  1 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W, Mc~~; B --~'\"'.'~~= CLE K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  Y- PLAINTIFF  V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 2J 2007 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS . On October 4, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. 1/Jlt: IT IS SO ORDERED this ~day of October, 2007. Office bf Desegregation Monitoring -lied States District Court  Eastern District of Arl\u0026lt;ansas October 3, 2007 The Honorable William R. Wilson Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 500 West Capitol, Room 444 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 RECEIVED OCT - ' 2007 Wm. R. WIison Jr U. S . District Ju'dge E .D. of Arl(ansa8 Enclosed is the proposed 2007-08 ODM budget. The format of the document follows that of ODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. This budget is allocated between the State of Arkansas, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. Since LRSD has been released from all obligations relating tQ any ODM budget after the 2006-07 school year, our proposed 4007-08 budget does not include a financial allocation for the LRSD. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Andree Roaf Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enc. cc: Judge J. Thomas Ray - - - - - - - - - - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2007-08 BUDGET REVENUE ~o:;~~I :~i=~~e ~;~:)tt)J~~ft1; State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 [}f:;iq9!9pQ';q/ LR::.,.,.,_,., 112,356.00 112,356.00 ~1A~~l~~ Minus credit from previous year 4,324.00 4,324.00 \\--::_,; 3;Q_51;too :; Equals LRSD's share of the budget 108,032.00 108,032.00 ~\\(t{a;o~$.;ti~P NLRSD {f)Zt=JJM.ti:: Budget allocation 41,786.00 41,786.00 : U_~;5_Q1 99..4,QP :J-:,l.,,: :.{?1~-,:'\"=:; ~:::-,\\;=.:: .. '.f Minus credit from previous year 1,608.00 1,608.00 7:\\\u0026gt;'{1;:1~;7)Q,9t ........................... .... ........... . .............. ~-~~~r 1 jr. f ,, ....... .- :, Equals NLRSD's share of the budget ______ _ 40,178.00 40,178.00 ;\\iiMlift:@'; PCS SD ~lE:i\u0026gt;;~;/t{;))\\/g Budget allocation 77,999.00 77,999.00 ??')Jf;1~ey;9:o} ,_;, ://:.'.~ . \"\u0026gt;.~,;;-.;~~-~-i-{ ..: .1~\\ )',: Minus credit from previous year 3,002.00 3,002.00 \u0026lt;\u0026gt;./i4\\JZti09.\\ Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 74,997.00 74,997.00 ~J;j'ij9;p;~~}P.i:f ::::::tE quipment/Furniture ,-.~-'-,:,--- ,..-_,~',._-;.'-\", '4\"_-_.,~----_.'. ,._ -i0,-,' ---_-_'. . -: '_---:' ~----__ _:-:--.4\u0026gt;- '4\"_2:_.'..'~-2563 _8_ :- i_-:-_-i:_.o-~,-_2;_ - ,--,-.,. - _1.c;,'.~t:;;-:_~_-_,~-,:_3:~_,'.:1~_,._;o!_{,:7;,:,;:4'.;._l! ,;.:O~:'.:o:; ::,.::. 4Si~it#~y;ioui{ r\u0026lt;, __- :,!. :;~;-_--:JEi~~~=-;=:::~, -'-\"\"\"--t'-,-?'-~-'..,.~ .v..- \"\"'--'-=- '---'-\"'\"\"\"'\"--\"-\"'\"\"\":':\"r \"==-\"\"~--- _ ',/ _ Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES - 2006~07 Budget Communications 4,805.00 4,804.97 }?\\/j_~9.~@i;: Equipment 0.00 0.00 l'.'.,/y:f :{:g\\oo: Food Services 0.00 0.00 :i}:'??;/'/o.f@i Management Services 0.00 0.00 :{\\\u0026gt;'\\:}_q;qp_\". Perlodlcals 108.00 108.00 :-{,::-:/i)4ifue Rent 41 ,454.00 41,453.87 //:{tzi{fo~\\QO'. - +------+---------~ Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 162.00 161 .25 \\:.\\'~'.~1'.49.p;Qpi_ Resource Library 0.00 0.00 :::_t.J\\:\u0026lt;Y-;qc{ Salaries 302,161 .00 305,462.78 ?//~z~;of#;cfq.\\ Staff Development 0.00 0.00 ;:_;_;}\\;\"'. /-'O[~tj ; l--~-r-ua-p'-:'--1;es_ ___________1_ ,7_1_: -::-: -+---1_,7_1~- :-::- tr?t: t'.s0~~~i: Insurance Difference (Income minus Expendilur~! _ _ ------- ---- - - --- ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2007-08 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2007-08 Budget 10/1/06 %of 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment not spent) LRso  NA NA 0 3,056 (3,056) NLRSD 9,842 34.88 59,554 1,137 58,417 PCSSD 18,374 65.12 111,186 2,121 109;065 State of AR 200,000 0 200,000  YrWf~i/i(:': :::  i 2~~~J~i \u0026gt;~q\u0026amp;r, \u0026gt;\u0026lt;Jf o:1i o/ :;} '} \\i:~fJi: l: T.~e:J1i:14!t. Described below is:thestep~by'-step:process; reflected,inthe .chartabove,:.that we use.to .determine PCSSD's and NLRSD's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The sum is the amount each district is to contribute to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget. Note: Since the U.S. District Court had declared the LRSD unitary during the 2006-07 school year, the Court ruled that the LRSD had no obligation with respect to future ODM budgets. As a result, the 2006-07 credit, as shown in the chart above, is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for all three school districts, while the 2007-08 budget allocation is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for only the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Page3 ------------ EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2006-07 Budget 4,805.00 The 2007-08 communications budget Increased due to two factors: (1) the service provider Increased the standard monthly rate and (2) the service provider charged a one-time fee for moving the phone lines to relocate the office from the 18th floor to the 16u, floor (For more explanation pertaining to the move, see \"Rent' on page 4.) The overall Increase for 2007-08 Is offset by reducing the number of phone lines available for office use beginning In November 2007. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations . or associations or payments. to a paying agentfor services provided; such as conferenceregistration: fees. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2006-07 Budget Ex:~~::ires if l~~?::tt:tif 1;i~~f;~ Page4 ~-- - --------- . - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2006-07 Budget ex!~~:;~~res ;~I~~~~; i~:~~~~~~~:~:, 108.00 The amount budgeted and paid In 2006-07 was for a partial year's subscription for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The amount budgeted for 2007-08 ls for a full year's subscription. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2006-07 Budget ,___ __ 4,331.00 The decrease In the 2007-08 budget Is due to a new lease agreement that will begin November. 2007 for a copier with a smaller monthly premium. Professional and TechnicalServices: Services.which by their nature.can.be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2006-07 Budget 783.00 2006-07 Expenditures . With relocating the office from the 18th floor to the 16111 floor, computers, phone equipment, and internet service will have to be moved. The following breakdown includes the one-time charge for moving those three services: 800.00 standard services performed annually 300.00 relocate computers 500.00 Install Internet cabling 1,000.00 relocate phone equipment and lines Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2006--07 Budget Ex:~~:;fires J.~!f ~r' i\u0026amp;t::l;l'.i~r~g( 41,454.00 The decrease in the 2007-08 budget is due to a reduction In office space. ODM Is relocating from the 18th floor in the One Union Nation Plaza to the 16111 floor in the same building. The square footage is decreasing from 2,738 to 1,537 and the monthly rent from $3,203.46 to $1 ,857.21. Page5 Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2006-07 Budget 162.00 2006-07 Expenditures Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennanent or temporary nature. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Below is a breakdown of each.employee's budgeted200.7~08;salary, reflecting.a-329% annual.base.  increase, which.is equalto-orless:thantheannualstepincrease.onthe:salaryscales,oftheJo.cal:districts. . : .. 1Gene Jones resigned 3-15-07. 2Horace Smith resigned 6-30-07. .... . - ~- .. Name of Employee Aridree Roaf Gene Jones' Margie Powell - Horace Smith 2 Polly Ramer Linda Bryant 3 ..... - Total 3Linda Bryant's last day to work will be 1-4-08 -- 20D6-07 2007.06 Salary Salary . 1,373 1.19,000 48;480 0 - 77,354 79,899  84,694  0 58,061 59,971 - 32,199 17,204 302,16t . 276,074 - Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures ';\\}?:f r:f.it:,~r~ltt\\~ Page6 ~elow is a breakdown bv category of each emolouee's 2007-08 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hos pita I Short Total Allowance Security ment -lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Roaf 0 9,103.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,103.50 Powell 1,200.00 6,204.07 11,353.66 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.8B 22,369.61 Ramer 0 4,587.78 8,395.94 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.BB 16,565.40 Bryant 0 1,316.11 2,406.66 1,836.20 10.B0 145.B0 31 .05 32.40 5,660.92 ~tf:;}\\)i.V::~ \\(Ji~~~;~ci-,: ':,~2f;il:~:/i.} i~J$ida;Y \\ff,i~Vii.f: (i;1.foa) {\\:;.JjQ'.7it{ tf/ A'.~~:w:,; ;:)1i~2i~: /st$i~J3 y  Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex  units or substances. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel; and other expenses associatedwithtraveling or business, such as parking fees .. Payments for per diem inlieu ofreimbursementsfor. subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2006-07 B0dget 0.00 2006-07 Expenditures Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2008-07 Budget 606.00 2006-07 Expenditures With decreasing the size of the office, the amount of office furniture and equipment will also be decreased, thus reducing the amount of required insurance. Page7 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:45 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/17/2007 at 4:44 PM CDT and filed on 10/17/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4150 Docket Text: ORDER, parties must file any objections within 5 days to the ODM's proposed budget for the 2007- 2008 fiscal year; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/17/07. (\u0026lt;lac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/17/2007] [FileNumber=1020016- 0] [99db091723ab95387ed55376e2abde84173cd32f757af69fbebfD366e453fe6d6a 30ecb3de178c4bee78c3e3553b92316e64claa22ba7bc68b6dfa6339c6c01c]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 _,_ . _._ S:ILEn '.: ... ul ofsrR,cT ~~T ,_. l:l\"LSTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 2 2 2007 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. 4:82CV866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Norman J. Chachkin, one of counsel for Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays that this Court enter its Order pennitting him to withdraw from that representation in this matter because he will be leaving the staff of the NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. (\"LDF'') effective October 31, 2007. Plaintiffs will continue to be represented by local counsel. Respectfully submi~. ~JM#i  /NRMAN J. CHAH~\"'- NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educ'l Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, NY 10013-2897 (212) 965-2259 .. K Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 16th day of October, 2007, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion upon counsel for the parties to this action, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday \u0026amp; Eldredge 400 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 M. Samuel Jones, ill, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C.-LR 425 West Capitol A venue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Scott Richardson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 ~ Norman J. C achkin Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:00 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/22/2007 at 2:59 PM CDT and filed on 10/22/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4152 Docket Text: MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Norman J Chackhin by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 2/5/2008 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: - Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/22/2007] [FileNumber=1022555- 0] [213d777cf824ab20d17e53b3c5c67bf922eee4068a2775e3efelc72fb42adb4c74 b4 7b72df64 707695aa3b4d63cc28ef3f41536fb8234e0c204fe428375d5afl]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:21 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 10:21 AM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4153(No document attached) Docket Text: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting [4152] Joshua Intervenor's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Accordingly, Mr. Norman J. Chachkin is relieved as counsel.Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (dmm) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger 2/5/2008 Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:22 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 4:21 PM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4157 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER granting a 60 day response time by the Joshua Intervenors. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 2/5/2008 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/25/2007] [FileNumber=1025783- 0] [91fddbcc4f9aea5c15f00b473b51d71da937811d78bd2ef82791680e9e20aa9d42 4a82969046042af8fbcfl80d43faa29047f08cf9d724df6de6bcedblllba35]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 c: Met~ ; c:.. \" fktd:;~ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS REC E WESTERN DIVISION IVED OCT 3 o ,nn1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT reAINTIFF OFACEOF v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW DESEGREGATION MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. The PCSSD believes that it has complied with or is in substantial compliance with its desegregation plan known as \"Plan 2000\". 2. The PCS SD seeks a declaration of this Court that it is unitary and should be  released from all aspects of Federal Court supervision. 3. Because the District can be eligible to receive certain financial incentives as a result of Act 395 of the 2007 legislative session if it is declared unitary by June of 2008, the PCSSD requests that a scheduling order be issued which would facilitate such a determination and decision by this Court within the deadlines suggested by Act 395. 4. This motion is accompanied by a rnemorandum brief, and a copy of Plan 2000 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 13 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a finding by this Court that it is unitary as respects substantial compliance with its desegregation plan, its release from Federal Court supervision and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.corn  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 13  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle. williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 3 , Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 13 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAN 2000 DATED November 4, 1999 A. Scope of This Plan (1) This Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions: B. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; (b) Th~ Mqgn.et.\u0026amp;ct,Qol St.ipulation qated :F~Qruary 27, (c)  (d) (e) 1987; f L ,:- : . Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and . .  -~ . --; : h: - . : :, Orders -of the ~istriqt.:9ourt and the court of appeals interpre~ing orj ~.!ifqi\"Giflg sectkm~ (a). throt1gh (d) above to. the ~xt~r:it: nQ.t inconsist~nt.wi~h this Plan. General Obligation .. . . ,' . .,1_: :: ;.' : :, . -   : : .\" 1. ; ; :, :?: \\ ~ ~.: !  t' ' ' I ,  ,  , PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the oper~tion qf th-~- P,CSSD, ~nd to pr9vide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending P,CSSO schools.  .   . _ C. (1) The PCSSD shall continue to implement the current standards for the assignment of students to schoot.s~wittlim :tt,,e _district. The. PCSSD shall Inform the Joshua lntervenors of the documen:ts whi.ch set forth the details of the existing plari. This notice shall be prov1dec;l:w!ttiii:i: $0,-;d~y~_of th$. c\u0026lt;;\u0026gt;ur\\'$. a.pproval of _this Plan. (2) The PCSSO shall s~~mit.n.of iater:than-October ~5 in each school year a report concerning one race classes. the report shall set forth for each such class: (i) the school, (ii) the class including the grade level, (iii) the racial make-up of the class, (iv) a description of steps taken to elim.iilate the particular one race class and the 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW   boc~~ent 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 13 reason(s) why this proved to be infe~$ible. The PCSSD shall submit not later than March 1 of each school year a siajilar;,s,Lipple.mental report concerning any one race classes in courses commenc.i n.g ~h. 't~. e~e99nd semester of the s~hool year. ,. - . . D. Advanced Placement, G(ft~d ,and Talented .and Honors Programs   :. 'I , ' ~. , ;(  Not later than 45 days a~r. the, court's approval: of this Plan, the PCS SD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenor$)h~i taijqards then in 'place for selecting secondary students for and educating them in .~dvan~ed placement, gifted and talented, and honors programs, including standard(tp promote racial diversity in these programs. The PCSSD shall include in this submission notices which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. E. Student Assignment; lnterdistrict Schools (1) PCSSD and LRSD shall operate interdistrict schools in accordance with the following: ___,: .. , ,:;,,.,;,;~:: ,:,: . (a) (b) . (c) (d) (e) 136748-v1 . .    : .: i ~ ~_., :-.i1 r{it~_~ r, '.. i . /L .. : : ,, \\ . PCSSD. lntetdistrict .Schools. PCS$D shall operate Baker Elerrieritary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary ah~i any. .new elementary school which may be corisfriicfecflii the Chenal Valley area as lnterdis~rict -~~hqql,s, .( J;.  '. I ' .   I 1 \\ , LRSD lnt~rdistri~t Si~~ols. 1-RSO.shall operate King Elementary, R9rn,i111~ ;~iementary: and Washington Elementary a~j {rnt~frdl$.trict SchoQIS. ' Racial Composition. The ideal composition at the interdi~trict ~chpoJ~ snail be as close to 50%-50% as possible with. tne majority race of the host district remaining the,:1;11,aj9.{ity race at the in.terdistrict school, except that ~ak~r School shall not be subject to this requirement., '\u0026gt; :. ... . '' ' . .. .. ''{ :\\,,i\\-i11 ;_ .. , :. . . . ReservedSea'ts~'~jPC$~.D.shall reserve at least 200 seats at.Cl!n.ton:,E!~m.~rtary and. up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill El~m~ntacy for interdi~t~ict transfer students from L.RS.D. The District shall also reserve up to haif of theseats for LRSD black students in any new Chenat VaU.~ y. . S., c..h. ool . Recruitment Pcssd ~nd LRSD agree to implement programs at interdisfrict schools designed to attract interdistrict transfe~ students and to work 2 : . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 13 F. (f} (g) Discipline cooperatively to.recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict schools. Outside Students. lnterdistrict schools shall be open to students who ~esid~ outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the interdistrict school In achieving its ideal racial composition.  Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to interdistrict schools. (1) The PCSSD will continue to gather data which allows a full assessment of its success in achieving its objective, of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. As a foundation for,this effort, disciplinary records shall be kept on each student concerning the nature of any discipline imposed (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.); the teacher.and sJaff member involved; and the school, race, and sex of the student. . : . . (2) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shausubmit to the Joshua lntervenors, for comment, proposed criteria for identifying, from the data collected: (i) teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems ;which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. The Joshua .lntervenors shall have 21 days to provide comments on these proposed criteria. The PCSSD shall then complete the criteria promptly. (3) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation and the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall thereafter provide for and participate in specific efforts to work with teachers anc;f other staff members and the personnel of schools, identified pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2, to promote achievement of the goal of eliminating r~cial disparities in school discipline. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall maintain records showing the specific steps undertaken. (4) PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve (12)), one-half designated by the Joshua lntervenors and one-half by PCSSD and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible remedies. The panel shall, among other things: review discipline records to secure an understanding of the circumstances in which African-American students are disciplined; interview and\\or 3 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 13 survey African-American students regarding their experiences in the system generally and in the discipline process; and consider the possibility of a relationship between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. The written study shall be completed not later than 150 days after court approval of this Plan and shall provide suggestions for prevention and intervention measures. (5) The PCSSD shall develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This initiative shall be implemented not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. (6) PCSSD shall adhere to the_ policies set forth in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, as revised after consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, PACT and PASS, to provide that students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall be responsible for determining the fairness of student disciplinary decisions. He will delegate the student hearing function to a single hearing officer who will consider the appeal brought by parents and the position of the administrator making the recommendation and then make a decision based upon equitable factors. An aggrieved student may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may review the matter or refer it to the school board for action. The committee approach which utilizes school principals in the student appeal process has been discontinued and will not be reinstituted. G. Multicultural Education (1) The PCSSD shall continue its efforts to infuse multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. All phases of a school's environment (M.:., instructional materials, lesson plans and lessons, library cqntents, bulletin boards, extracurricular activities, school assemblies, speaker programs, and food services) shall reflect the system's Plan to multicultural education. (2) A principal activity of the Coordinator for Multicultural Education and the Coordinator's office shall be on-site visits to individual schools to determine whether the system's policy and the provisions of this Plan are being implemented in fact. The Coordinator shall maintain records permitting an evaluation of the status of implementation at each school visited . . - H. School Facllltles (1) The PCSSD shall prepare, with the help of consultants, as necessary, a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive and equal. The plan shall address alternatives for funding its implementation. The Board of School Directors shall approve a plan not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. The Joshua lntervenors shall be given a-14 day period to comment on the content of the plan prior to its adoption.  4 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159  Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 13 (2) 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).    (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua lntervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua lntervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal.  I. Scholars hips Within 30 days from the date that the LRSD successfully establishes its own scholarship program, PCSSD shall es.t~blish a bi-racial committee to explore a program for providing college scholarships .to designated PCSSD students. J. School Resources PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, a study to determine whether school.resourc;::es are allocated equitably among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil\\teacher ratio; pupil\\staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer\\pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified. K. Special Education (1) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for: (i) stressing intervention strategies and regular class modifications in an effort to prevent inappropriate referrals of black males and kindergarten students; (ii) monitoring the folders of all kindergarten students and black students who are being considered as in need of special education under IDEA and Section 504 to insure nondiscrimination in evaluation and placement. The PCSSD shall Include in this submission materials which are used to inform staff members of th.e relevant standards. (2) The Director of Special Education shall develop a specific plan for additional monitoring each year, by his\\her staff, of schools where there are atypically 5 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 0 of 13 high racial disparities in special education classification, generally or as to black male students. The PCSSD shall provide a copy of this plan to the Joshua lntervenors, which shall include criteria for Identifying schools for monitoring. L. Staff (1) The PCSSD shall recruit applicants for each available administrative position, by internal and external means, in a manner designed to communicate, broadly, its availability and to develop a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall, with the cooperation of the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, be informed of the make-up of each such applicant pool and they shall have the authority to direct that additional recruitment take place prior to the offering of the position to a particular applicant. (2) The PCSSD shall engage in recruitment so that new teachers are selected from a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall monitor the recruitment process so that recruitment is extensive and sustained, and the hiring process so that no policy, practice, or custom has the purpose or the effect of imposing an upward limit on the proportion of black teachers. (3) The PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and\\or procedures which result in an increase in the number of African-American early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the PCSSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. , (4) The PCSSD will allocate teachers and other professional staff in a manner which avoids the racial identification of schools. M. Student Achievement (1) The PCSSD shall implement the plans designed to improve student achievement, recommended by Dr. Stephen Ross, and shall work with Dr. Ross in their implementation. See Attachment (plans). (2) The PCSSD shall continue to implement its home-school counselor program. 6 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 13 N. Monitoring (1) The Assista.nt Superintendent for Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of this Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua lntervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. (2) Upon reasonable notice, the Joshua lntervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and secure copies of records relating to the PCSSD's compliance with this Plan, including records identified in this Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. 136748-v1 (3) The PCSSD shall submit statistical reports showing the following: (a) The enrollment in each school by race; (b) The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes, by school and by race; (c) The make-up of special education programs: (i) by disability category, including Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated in this paragraph; (d) For each school and the system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by race and by sex; for each school and the system, the number of students receiving each form of discipline, by race and by sex; (e) The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii) other professional .staff, and (iv) support staff; (f) The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators, faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSD. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 13 The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later than 30 days after the end of each semester. 0. Continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance wit'1 and modifications of this Plan. Nothing in this Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Plan in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua lntervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. 136748-v1 (a) Joshua shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the PCSSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: (i) the paragraph(s) of the Plan at issue; (ii) the names of all students involved, if any; (iii) the names of all PCSSD agents or employees involved, if any; (iv) all facts of which the Joshua lntervenors are aware relevant to the compliance issue; and (v} a copy of all documents in the Joshua lntervenors' possession relevant to the compliance issue. (b} PCSSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the Joshua lntervenors a written response within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of written notice from the Joshua lntervenors or such later time as agreed. 8 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 13 of 13 (c) If the Joshua lntervenors are unsatisfied with PCSSD's response, the Joshua lntervenors shall within 15 days of receipt of PCSSD's response submit the compliance issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, the Joshua lntervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Plan. P. The Scope of Compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Plan, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Plan. Q. Court Submission This Plan shall be submitted to the court for consideration after ratification by a majority vote of the PCSSD Board of School Directors. R. Financial Claims The PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. 9 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 C '. ,41/c, ;-0 1 e, ...- ~ 'f; e,, Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DI~T~~W OOFaT,ED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ~~iS. I V WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DESEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Federal judicial supervision over the facets of the operations of a school system was never intended to \"extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination.\"1 Indeed, \"[f]rom the very first, federal supervision oflocal school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. \"2 The end purpose of federal judicial supervision was, and remains, \"to remedy the violation, and in addition, to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. \"3 This is necessarily the case because the return of \"schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our government system. \"4 1 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248, 111 S. Ct. 630,637, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991). 2 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 11 I S. Ct. at 637. 3 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S. Ct. 1430, 1445, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992). 4 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489, 112 S. Ct. at 1445; see also Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S. Ct. 2766, 53 L. Ed. 2d 851 (1977) (observing that \"local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition\"). Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 12 A. The current status of school desegregation in Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District has been declared unitary. The North Little Rock School District has recently filed a motion for unitary status. The school district was previously declared unitary in the area of student assignments. On June 9, 2004, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued a report to the federal district court5 addressing the school district's compliance with the remaini~g requirements of its desegregation plan. Contemporaneously with the execution of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD adopted a lengthy plan which, together with exhibits, exceeded 200 pages in length and was centered around job descriptions. In the latter part of the decade of the 1990s, the then presiding district court judge urged the PCSSD to enter negotiations with the parties to formulate a simpler and far less complex plan. By that time, the PCSSD had been declared unitary in phases in several areas of operations. Joshua and the PCS SD then set about the successful process of negotiating \"Plan 2000\" which Joshua and the PCSSD jointly submitted to the District Court for approval and to which no other party voiced objection. The Plan was duly approved and a true copy is attached to the motion as Exhibit A for the convenience of the Court and the parties. The PCSSD has operated under Plan 2000 for approximately seven years and now files its motion for unitary status. While certain or'its provisions are discussed herein, others will be analyzed for the Court as the proceedings progress. 1. Student Assignments. Recent and historical data analyzed indicate that the Pulaski County Special School District is positioned to be declared unitary in the area of student assignments. During 2006-2007 a Pulaski County Special School District elementary 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 12 school was considered desegregated if its student enrollment ranged between 20 to 51.0 percent black students. 6 Only four of school district's elementary schools feature a black student enrollment outside this range. In 2006-2007 Adkins Elementary School's black student enrollment stood at 59 percent; Taylor Elementary School was 59 percent; and black students comprised 61 percent of the student enrollment at Jacksonville Elementary School. These schools exceed the upper level for enrollment of black students by relatively modest percentages,7 Plan 2000 essentially continued the student assignment zones and geo code designations that were developed in 1989 and which have occasionally been tweaked and changed, always with court approval. Since the inception of Plan 2000, the most significant change in assignment zones occurred with respect to Harris Elementary School. The changes in assignments and - strategies for attracting students to Harris Elementary were by motion, and an order entered by this Court. All of the secondary schools, save Mills, at 60 percent (2 percentage appoints above the targeted range), are within their goals. With only five of the 36 Pulaski County Special School District's schools out of compliance with the enrollment guidelines, the district believes it is in substantial compliance with the federal district court's order to the extent practicable. The \"latest word\" in school desegregation law was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 5 \"The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of its Desegregation Plan,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, June 9,2004. 6 The federal district court established the desegregation deviation factor for determining if a school in the Pulaski County Special School District is desegregated. It is based upon a formula. The lower range is fixed at 20 percent. The upper range is determined by taking the total percentage of the school district's black enrollment and multiplying it by 25 percent. An upper range of 51 percent resulted for 2006-2007. 7 The fourth school, Bayou Meto Elementary School, is an isolated school with a small black enrollment. Because of its isolation, it has been exempted by the federal district court from compliance with the desegregation deviation factor. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 12 The decision has proved controversial to many and its precise impact and effects remain debated. However, even the plurality opinion does reiterate much that has been understood for decades. For instance, at page 24 of the plurality opinion, the Roberts Opinion reminds us that: Even in the context of mandatory desegregation, we have stressed that racial proportionality is not required, see Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14 (\"[A desegregation} order contemplating the substantive constitutional right [to aJ particular degree of racial balance or mixing is ... infirm as a matter of law\" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. I, 24 (1971) (\"The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole\"). Further, to the extent that the racial composition of schools within the district has changed over time only because of private decisions, the fact that the PCSSD has not changed school assignment zones without court approval is of legal import. Again, the Roberts Opinion reminds us: The distinction between segregation by state action and racial imbalance caused by other factors has been central to our jurisprudence in this area for generations. See, e.g., Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14; Freeman, 503 U.S., at 495-496 (\"Where resegregation is a product not of state action but of private choices, it does not have constitutional implications\"). 2. Faculty and Administrative Assignments. A desegregation deviation factor for the assignment of school level administrators and faculties was not established by the court or Plan 2000. In general, however, the case law provides that each school should have a staff that approximates the district-wide racial composition of its school-site administrators, teachers, and support staff personnel. 8 The PCS SD believes it is in compliance with this requirement. 8 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 12 The Pulaski County Special School District recently had a ratio of 4 7 .1 percent white and 52.9 percent black building level administrators. Building level administrators in these school districts are evenly distributed and in almost every instance where there is more than one building level administrator assigned to a school there is one of each race. Schools with only one building level administrator are divided fairly evenly between the races. Therefore, the PCS SD believes it is in substantial compliance in the areas of faculty and building level administrative assignments. 3. Facilities. Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District range from excellent to others in need of either extensive renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement. However, those schools in need of renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement are not vestiges of the prior dual system of education for the races. Further, one of the significant accomplishments of the state Lake View litigation has been the comprehensive assessment review, remedial plans and, most importantly, the multi-million dollar commitment by the State of Arkansas to upgrade all school facilities in the State. Each district has been required to submit a 10 year plan for the renovation of facilities and the replacement of those whose renovation is impractical or economically unwise. Stated another way, the funds necessary to accomplish equality in facilities in the PCSSD has been appropriated by the State from the recent State surpluses and the Court can thus be assured that the work will be done and facilities will be upgraded. B. What is a unitary system? A unitary school system is one that has complied in good-faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered and has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination \"to the extent practicable.\"9 9 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249-50, 111 S. Ct. 638. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 12 \"The origin of the 'good faith' requirement c;an be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in [Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955)] Brown fl \" 10 Good-faith requires that a school district demonstrate \"to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\"11 A school district's good-faith commitment to the entirety of the court's orders is necessary \"in order to insure that the principal wrong of the dejure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, is no longer present.\" 12 A history of good-faith compliance must be found by the federal district court in order that it may \"accept [a] school board's representation that it has accepted the principle of racial equality and will not ;suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" 13 Compliance \"to the extent practicable\" with the court's decrees in the present school desegregation litigation requires that each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County demonstrate to the federal district court that they have complied in good-faith with the provisions of their respective consent decrees for a reasonable period of time. 14 Consent decrees or agreements are contractual in nature and, therefore, compliance is required as to each provision even where a provision may arguably impose requirements not otherwise required by law for a judicial finding of unitary status. 15 1 Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon, \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement,\" 159 West's Education Law Reporter, 407,407. 11 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1446. 12 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485, 112 S. Ct. at 1443. 13 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498, 112 S. Ct. at 1449. 14 See generally, William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz, \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts,\" 82 West's Education Law Reporter, 283. 15 While a federal district court may not order a remedy over the objections ofa party that is not tailored to remedy a constitutional violation, the parties to a lawsuit may settle their dispute \"by undertaking to do more than the Constitution itselfrequires ... , but also more than what a court would have ordered absent the settlement.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,389, 112 S. Ct. 748,763. 116 L. Ed.2d 867 (1992). 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 12 Compliance also may be required with what are commonly referred to as the Green factors although this case has likely progressed beyond this analysis and several of the Green factors are not present in Plan 2000 nor are they required to be monitored. In past cases, compliance required elimination to the extent practicable of the vestiges of the prior dual system in the areas of student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, extra-curricular or student activities, and facilities. Nevertheless, it is not unusual in the latter stages of a school desegregation lawsuit, such as regards the PCSSD here, that orders issued by federal courts may focus on specific facets of the operation of a school system where additional remedies may be required without further mention of one or more or all of the Green factors .16 Finally, when a school district is declared unitary by a federal district court, whether in whole or partially and whether upon consent of the parties or following adversarial proceedings, - judicial supervision is terminated and all orders and injunctions with respect to the declaration are terminated. 17 Control of the affairs of the school district in the area or areas in which it is declared unitary are returned to local control and the litigation as to such area or areas is concluded. 18 Thus, a party formerly adverse to the school district is not positioned, following a declaration of unitary status, to petition the federal district court in the concluded litigation to once again exercise its supervision over the area or areas in which the school district was previously declared unitary. In short, once a school district is declared unitary and in compliance with the constitution the jurisdiction of the federal district court is ended. 19 Accordingly, post-Dowell and Freeman 16 \"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\" Dowell, 498 U.S. at 246, 111 S. Ct. at 636, citing Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S. Ct. 2697,49 L. Ed.2d 599 (I 976). 17 Dowell, 498 U. S. at 244-46, 111 S. Ct. at 635-36; Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490, 112 S. Ct. at 1445. 18 \"A school district which has been released from an injunction imposing a desegregation plan no longer requires court authorization for the promulgation of policies and rules regulating matters such as assignment of students and the like, but it of course remains subject to the mandate of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\" Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250, 111 S. Ct. at 638. 19 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1445-46. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 12 there no longer exists a post-operational period following a declaration of unitary status in which the jurisdiction and supervision of a federal district court may be reintroduced upon motion of an adverse party. Once a school district has been declared unitary, the jurisdiction of the federal courts may only be reintroduced in a subsequently filed action in which a finding of intentional discriminatory conduct in violation of the Equal Protection Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment is alleged. 20 C. Good Faith In order to establish that PCSSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has \"complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co Special School Dist. No. 1, 23 7 F .Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U .s. - 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that \"good faith\" is demonstrated when, ... the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts,, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duration of the school district's compliance record must be considered: ... a court should give particular attention to the school system's record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the 20 See Elston v. Talladega County Board of Education, 997 F.2d 1394, 1404 (I ph Cir. 1993), in which a previously declared unitary school district was sued for, among other things, an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of appeals observed that: \"To establish an equal protection clause violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a challenged action was motivated by an intent to discriminate. \" (emphasis supplied.) 8 id. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 12 passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision.\" D. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving \"good faith,\" PCSSD must also establish that it is in \"substantial compliance\" with the PCSSD Plan. As this Court has stated, \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,470 F.Supp.2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for \"substantial compliance\": [I]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' ... [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Code v. Hillard, 139 f.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. 1998).21 21 It should be noted that some time ago Joshua invoked the \"Dispute Resolution\" provision of Plan 2000. While currently languishing, this process remains technically in progress. 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 10 of 12 Conclusion The purpose of court supervision was to create a unitary school system from what was once a \"dual school system,\" establishing and maintaining a system in which the interests of both black and white students were equal by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Before the last election, three of the District's seven Board members were African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains diversity in certificated staff and student bodies. For reasons set out above, PCSSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 10 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.eom  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 12    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_1783","title":"Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration","School boards","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1783"],"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":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, brief in support of petition for declaration of North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcripts for January 20-21, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcript for January 27, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals; 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.    I - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN-THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 1,-\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;/,  11 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial respcmse to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. ExhibitC 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 4 From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:37 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 1:34 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4141 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-0 ] [7408cdf9227856d4a2dc8c5472dba34f9701c196844fa005057a3efc58191153622 37392e63ee5c0cb5a9e62035a723d9af46c5f2c4eccee1665780a45123d4c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-1 ] [add65045e0898ea243flb786e3750c22c95d32b3ce2bd77f30813cf53e4d58054bf 14d5b83c5e198ad04dfb23253abed52e83dab079cab80be76e5198b8ad18d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-2 ] [4fa6ae63a4929c8fb7561a2b6d74767b9a891424ab463c461e4a4ba4a100cl96b3d 0b89bf7b7d3570ed154641dlf6d30fe0d43e3ebl5420aaa5711a75682a2b5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-3 ][39a2dflef684ce586aa3449d7ffc216a27556ea4c9f9454b846bb793cbd7e75a3e5 19e7639lca55b8df6e14c1804c67cd0e73aaa3d3e6694148c4bfDb5b51881]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-4 ] [ 483fD2ff 41f4b801869bd585e93dea4ebfl dfcfab89200f dbce28a0dd42b95642ca f725f5f82a09b252023e3f96c64581ddff34d816104d62803clc75697787b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-5 ] [afa73fb3c6c36449d6d596473611b6b5e69b07c792b7546e8f7baefdb225ada8dcb 4dfD17bla438468adf88fc23b6ecc62bd245043bb375a2120c23256d9822c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-6 ] [67b96710d57dda80ed2558bfD99baa8b7cfd55d01a627ac3bde559f885d50cc3137 20c518ee8ef9ebeedf926e056726cec42f4d144163ee0a294cb2b36ded68b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001129-7 ][6b590142c2bad10dad3710152f2c57fd4a7e86bc75eb7db6960b93b6a5247f73895 8b2fc206844b081cb5b88130c15ceaeab2e29fd3ffc74367c3bf638b4ab04]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-8 ] [a9baflb89925eab70001 ldfd31c4f5eae772f6a91faad2c9895a946e28884ff5c8a aec33f8e92abd550ee8465ad02337e7af30d0079c5c4dede2178436a9c6bd]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-9 ] [949adb7d003686a90e6373fb8a7895cf6e9c356fc2e412153f9b00e570f779b5bfb 43a4a93551ba60569fc04dd61de206ef9e7e044186d28038691e6c158c58e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-1 0] [0c7074833849c92f394ef3be8b183f2aea0b603e3a8e58dfebc71f3f520ca9e2ab aadcbc844d6bb9fe5105a81cla978b84e4ab781c51a0d7340ald7027206f6b]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 1] [45cf816fd0fc42e8457aa07c80161bec62c4a4888dc093bb76cb5393cll523d42e 3de6a879d701b37c29b62616076203b3446f7d931e5520de660feddc539925]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 2] [65D981f8e397de82dc932055d5e2a3d408bae0dab8dlc6336bce88539d876d2b2 f220bb2dc7500d4f31d04e55e985ae533b3efad5bf50f8d79fcflealflcf7c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 3] [lc9a9ea337f42743da3e3ffa9a093a8c93ceelfd47fcd4559df85d149ea6dd74d0 a7213f691ald5e00959f52ae08713d748966114f94413ccbe837cd021d05d3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 4] [657ce428ce6d5ba36593balfd68a40552f16a0d76fcffe4cc2d8878312b5de6634 76d017ca4bfb63b9b2433d98614ec6b91d9cb697fdlbed0de37e8cb62ec0e3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 5] [055ba6e0ccc26fc3be93t2a6fa4673b19d156b2d0e927d409ac93d5aeb63cc3483 583d3977f6a32a8cef777dab0d24f6d5dee64f8682dd401c8d97de66ed8fd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 6] [50885f5ca447559c0a9cae054e6405259ce5fb7ab917bfc395d3d807457cced78e 3c2f213a808184064ca0870bcba02723e3cblc2f454951c9d2c692dedbbdd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 7] [2a5553ddf0a6154f8Dd0115d60d0eff8bfdb25f8dc4a102876450950074b190cb b6c3d4b10bb6cceec938eldd4ad384e21fbl541cea47f32db2bl206ad3clbl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 8] [78f7d4ca3flc2726b65932f02ce8ce000205f501793454e4d95e4350a5936b95a6 fcf38f2411312cb5e06c613a8a46003822ae2bde399af9e927337ba2d8036d]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages J. Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 64 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 104 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages I.a Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 100 pages 22 Exhibit 100 pages 23 Exhibit 100 pages 24 Exhibit 49 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4142,26052,,30254580,,,2005729 9/21/2007 TestSystemN ame Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages z Exhibit 100 pages l Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages _5_ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 185 pages _8_ Exhibit 65 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 1.5- Exhibit 98 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages 1.8- Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 103 pages https:/ /ecf.ared. uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4143 ,26052,,8671824,,,2005732 9/21/2007 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages ~ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 67 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages ll Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages ., .li  Exhibit 115 pages 16 Exhibit 115 pages 17 Exhibit 193 pages ll Exhibit 95 pages 19 Exhibit 43 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4144,26052,,70913858,,,2005734 9/21/2007 .l. \\,,,~UJ] .\u0026gt;L\\.lllll '4a.J.llC .l a 0 \\,, .l V.l .l Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 7 pages 1 Exhibit 95 pages  Exhibit 70 pages .5. Exhibit 70 pages Q Exhibit 140 pages 1 Exhibit 75 pages ~ Exhibit 65 pages .2 Exhibit 140 pages 10 Exhibit 140 pages 11 Exhibit 85 pages - 12 Exhibit 77 pages u Exhibit. 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages u , Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 84 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?414 l ,26052,, 13 l 19253,,,2005727 9/21/2007 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :02 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 5 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:00 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4142 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit # (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit # (20) Exhibit # (21) Exhibit# (22) Exhibit# (23) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net - M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001182-0 ] [732ecb4e283771f778564bfdfdaba72c41 ldb5db5ad867ce5cbfb4bb71cfld0cc42 17f8dde1614980169fc7b34elf67c5ffila56c0467cd98f14dd7e75b981197]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 ] [ 6f9c24 78d4c3df70508774307b4010a45a47b89c0cc85d5eadf2ac7fl b0bc604 fe4 0c020e693df3dc764bc8cb86c5f2d2e0e728575ceb96ea79f3df21 e5b31 c0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 ] [76732e579983296a6340231f503219d4ac141a2dald2a94945b376b60b6d5be6761 efl 90defdf3e769d6bbaa40a9926672fdb0d997eaf838211 0c3e24d21 c9db]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-3 ] [ld175534371577d523d2626dd635776ba266f838901b2cc128a6911c9de8da0a7f7 8187d3027d549a4622d91945c646d37b9a77d9d40ba4460b63ebc066c9035]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-4 ] [98b2d2f432198e182449f7964994f5d993e7e34423a14ce63120f234c0bcb8b96aa ba09c25c95824fd2c710052d1867fb2d11251ac629ed5ef959002df2c247f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-5 ] [10b40a910f93f085227ead52fc6ae334bd81a4f4d67cbd2fb9c2ea938de1479e008 0505308e7b99b43fa8243a6bd52334b87756277e9blce8cc8f6717ab6100b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-6 ] [91846b38blafe013ea17b63baaelfe837a2dlllff4648b881768568e257b9bbea7f 103fcc3dad902c1651 lea5b6578a2f56ac7f511284fb7f016cfc3903f49a0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-7 ] [654b19df654e9605707d590b3bclabb094fca581702381c36176fefce4016d81784 d2ce504f7c04846b0479809fl65elc4c139b3ff993a0326efcdea4917af33]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-8 ] [2a9946396101840194ee9bcc5aaf917ad921c731d0dbf334839d3120d639bbblf7e 745cbbeced9d7d2f5acffa7892320262aae42bf3dc4d6990a64fc0d379c76]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-9 ] [6eac276cbdcb5d35a0c971066a048666b8a276989a83a670819410fbd8f20a7e855 4109991c01408a7e7aa02afclb6ffc7f27c64c0e7f722a991elbc49ecf59d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 0] [02a288c211cb4dbedfb0adf2e12cad68811db777f74f99e6f9dca57180ff0577ba 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 f5b25acb8b30d70a5c5530494997975b3972a818eb8fd3af4f0602cd79b4fa]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 1] [806fb6c709fd8fba43c9dee9a9ff9bfab1587335a151cc00ade4d048e4e457eef9 0b0dc2429939167fde86407ace3004781e0aa4c3dc2299840e264fbafd088b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 2] [22dcd9490f97ae67e1827595bfb623adllde43dlb1369t71058b01b7493e7bf4e3 ea144df5302e54894693cc223e4dade8116a047c0a434af5d1974t779de676]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 3] [le989d88422a9d961dlf06dcaa6195f149a31f2fdcb0b0dla9816ffcf23dl613e5 ca080d346c99d75ba3968dbc8786cl15096f3b380ef03895ccclede5acc667]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=I00I 182-1 4] [5ce49adlf4d8d8c7857d87807293c5b863504b86ae3babd575bla54b84b62b6214 f1218b63aafb8823d2d499145e71c0fdcc5ec602493c0d25351e21279e6cdl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0I 182-1 5] [89299db8fd3e45c14674153396954082139913d3e56f4ae470e74d7eb557ac5a37 dcb9aa3 ldcl 9e3e488b92fe2fcacff65b4ebdlade38a45de3a3becbb726ca3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 6] [6ale4507bc17e6e6447149c39011886df5ab107ee3951a7ff837d96bd16553c098 9cda72fbd0e769cb20cfl 4936162ffc3cc58f6e2249b61 e9b90f072d0cafl e ]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001182-1 7] [911fc117adb373dt77d04cecel216blb7d687aff9cab7b350774ebl37d4320c705 95f2a18f31b03c741b776dd623f2805blfd2968abc9dfa521774ee54506b89]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 8] [5c7a2c7806b9c251ad28fba24ddbe29d38a5dccfd8504t73af44b0d89baae66906 e9c8b0f41cldff8018946ee4cd61a6a02e91fa01070d2059854f88fad5ecb2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 9] [3b26e538efc25c8b26d7ef36d152e0aeabd7f0e49e240033302b95a0623dccfce4 0f5c17bldb1988caa373dafd419d4226207291025dlc8eb8081896b1601876]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 0] [llb4a69fba2dbef7c040f82eeleb243a4698132244d752be3fb33cc7192bcc340b 79f4bd5e5979d4a7ca965c4ee3c7746ba10bba318c5e051e6d4717357ba902]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\":tlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 1] [4104a3ald0cclc49c62ff22bbee32adf3e88d93b64f7865lf124981e26eb747dc4 5f3f40df3ba7cb30623ee06cl 1006976aec81064315c97c73aef02a3dle7fd]] Document description:Exhibit Original fdename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-2 2] [5a0fb371519242533b0c8ce336b9d54dd5fe6b321d7d429dfb0cdb8555a5a797ee ledle6cfc089ele3044c4d359a4df8184a0f671ac33ea3ee2a67d84392dd72]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 3] [21b3bd817f4329aea4b8645930bb3a7d6f551d7c7ebfc0100449aa24a8blc04ddc 3202d7888f58eaaa6a23f0f040771fd28e0bfb7612d6029685390c9a2feda6]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, -etal. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its -Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits 81- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1-994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Josbua lntervenors. shall. have an extende.d '. time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 I I I I I I I I I I . . Case 4:82:..cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 T-elephene 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, .attomey for Separate Defendant North Little: Rock School. District, certify I electronicallyfile.d the foregoing:with the Clerk of the court using the.  ECF system which.sent notification.of-such filing;to. the following:.. . Mark A Hagmemeier,;, Assistant Attorney General. 323' Center Street;. Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 7220'f-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher He.II.er. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regi:ons-Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 5 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :26 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:24 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4143 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit# (20) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn. Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-0 ] [23f424df6165dd0af5a48c604be8a42ce88925e27b72ef8214a67b506d0d65f3b44 1781alb03a2e260ac8a1691a58a6be30062a807da4af18c95a649e7568dc7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=l 095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l 001262-1 ] [b60d4dc2dd43d0703e7bccebb6c759a99c85a6b3143bd382d4eccb53c908472f6b6 b95cbf8a31 e4a7b823d04 la57a90cl 02fa5f093f0f628d2bb62c9db3c3d70]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 ] [95b30cb39c08ddbef857bd37a3f6208729e9170580a0760c14cabee327ccd472523 e2f7b5a5a415d3a280f8a34d9ede2d5dl 7f4efb 11c473624de768cl 42cdc2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-3 ] [79bbce6cf7005d9b8962a96fabec77cal 52a79a0383b38935c9d4 7f57b5 lfl 74b81 63546ee5blce864eba62c0243b8fd79d19fa18ac4t20fe89f840573be119b]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-4 ] [5fc3981d411 ba53da3844250b4f5bfb96255e9fa5d803135a7a0f9dd912df44fb41 026373d67c7dc1060009a363705e30de794ela33a8e8ae959da6b2bc69f0d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-5 ] [552ad246de56e3d60a685972b822fd5d4feea47et2f68077382c913c77eba027048 459266f4b6a42fc4d685be5b55e4f463389020a94d0ceacef0069b439e74a]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-6 ] [16864e6278e2dla9bdddeeelf9e395084e4ccfa6233b25f96566fbc109b3a161d74 cc9cdb9d27b819457c04735c996c6e23a9511300dldff50acce0c957506ea]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-7 ] [74368ccd3cad082ca55235e44alfb32d68d6c4cblc90421606a48718db3bf320f6c 53bc6bd979fb24d7e33ba9f4ec3d8c48e3625755cd6198d9a6e881dd97f6c]] Document description:Exhibit Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-8 ] [3646c507 af00002bb44bba6793ff3a 1 aeb72175e2d06921d5c084797 ddl 29fl f0f5 39c328e61dbc0d3976889079a31435460b2138ed244d69529d9d422celcal]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-9 ] [b5e7ee808be7c96896345bd4590e69deb2845206b0a20373f0edl6da586cab08c51 ef5faeb787614133570068e760e5fe49d8620c63a9dc39cf87al 0 166a8a92]] Document description:Exhibit Original f'dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 0] [b77944eab8d772ab90aa8d690d83515dldfb911b9dllc963f4ff8t2a79a951d3aa lf612f41a3c6b952f48d9a3da6876bddl 119e68cab6892ablfcf3279d43t24]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 1] [72b8ad0a2180a61ae916d3cdbec0a39a66521c4aff4ded407c4478c700a68fa0c2 c80eda95ce8a9611 b944b80b6c5833fc5b0240e50fecfd266fl 4559ef5d08e]] Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 2] [816b6bd868tb0eeab0695928b04ba325dbb7b467f481bb2b910cda328f2cf82940 e71405ecbae73f4283ae574bef7149a75f20772cfde3ealeb33857704ed8e8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 3] [6e2dcc0c0b87e4c37aff0a67b95cc8a881339e6c39818a7f6906bblb88fe22feab ddllc726065eldcb8f5ff71a0413478ab80ead70074c4c8f59213bcdecff8e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l001262-1 4] [76ed6c79368186d379964f39ce0f2b412b168fdlb20a831193de4371ed662c4031 76631dbdca91bb61836cdcfca8f80bda71038864c2409935a67e30ca70fa6d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 5] [184e7a90a8830f6fcef677231548be690cd58c04aaf40aa47b048a0eda6ede0091 f204d846f2f8c8477e5e652c77728c18cd92644fd7e96e527401078cbf7b06]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 6] [5cc207877d56e4e2a667e0a9e0d524d226a7f9celbe951209669762b661dfffc01 e 166bfl c205b2167f7 c36e32fde3d8160da0b2b8941fca040dfffeca33684b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 7] [7659051ff91d5daalcabd3ed40ea080da57ae7f7b12b2f8fl6c7dcca279ddl5da7 dc5117964ec9102b7bbfff5f3992ba743818e90eb736587d310c60c45e33e4]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 8] [5b6dlf77d04051b462070fc0fe68c6baca528cf6556elc44a7d48f38tbc4748bad bb12c6ba0c70a21dac85a8ba943b9540d5db67f8c846c7ffl7e7a94816b34~] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5  ' .. [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-l 9] [8799d0fe271b53b3295672723fcadd3a361389b54d9563ce7bbdca88005442319e 8b4c37b0030975489057651818cfaf06ed6e7a33cad120e6196655c5b3203d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 0] [9ffc 19326b3e42:ff98ce344b6086ed4e 1706d 16e5ef85a25035201 b5cf80fl 9d 1 e aee482a7b4889333118849a87 d73e3070dal 629b2ee007f2af9f 4e 1 a00fe2d]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the flled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: - WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment: Docket entry modified to correct docket text (incorrect event chosen; this is not a motion, but an Addendum to [4141]). Motion event terminated. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Peti.tion for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts an!'.i has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NL'RSO detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be .. declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended .\\ time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-~75-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF.SERVICE I, Stephen W. JoF1es; attome;yfor-Separate: Defendant North Little~ Rock School: District,. certify! electr:ooicall~f filectthe:for::eg.oing,;with the Clerk ofthe .cour:tusing. the  ECF system which. sentnotificatian:.aisuctt.fi1ing.Jo,the following:_ Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney-General 323 Center Street; Suite:-200: Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge. \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions-Center: 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :53 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 4 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:52 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4144 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 - James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-0 ] [0868c679307f73045a3dbfb2c95157261c84c83e3e34fe8aeclef81:f91cb0c09c74 fba6daeeff319203617a2e4ab092102f450a6309c0b64a2993c1628a81be7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 ] [78d7342df58a134ba48a48f8b2ae80f3408be8acbb6b5ef04a29d73fb88e66d4f2e 2ed2348df8a369:f99c3a29a58d92a274:f98e7a729e213aeae53e0e96fdc41]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-2 ] [929717a9378022f4f30cbd8a7e6d9d78fb8e5d2c4b25d9c886b3988b333137fl783 e820426202101acf3797blld54e0d9429bc6626505d7157a44a3333196d71]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-3 ] [70fadb46421242f85d4251a7694c7248554a2e633adb49a95ba9b25ac5d0fb6c4bc acc31a82ec198a482008cc4766a2edl96cc73d858c30063ceabcd6872092f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-4 ] [b4f3cda43edea69679a27f3 75267f5fc073baccd656722a31 fl 92f9bbe613e78f4e 6656488ba104869b07f3174df90e30517827d83ab599500197cd1831ae99a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-5 ] [723dabl2b8e16d86e8bd07cbf96570d659814484d970bd27ela71de82ed9ec80216 c260de47a4327flc77823e3afDcf54b1999949620f581216ad8fbd25bc475]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-6 ][6252028fa87b8d94b112fc83becda43d44a80121bdb729d012565ce3173fe06e29d f46bc486541253b94b9ba7861e1517eab3ccedce7f7857a92c395100aafdf]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-7 ] [4b7blc17b066b4a379d6fcfea73c51flf3bea795d397f6855ec7401cf5bd9al246f bba27 al fl 2ee90fcfbba71d3f90cca99458b94be5ae0e01 f9c 1 b7b8ba0b66]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-8 ] [2e4f85557af367903dafcd9a7362ee9981754812dbf7bl2555a525ebb1130b60445 0d48eb4 l 98adbe9909f8a8fD3f3a6970579f3e 1 0ec5daf74f9d5219e9b2c5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-9 ] [7da21bf9clale6ae693ae14840c521clc766b8df88e93a56f6al0ad87fD3fc6ba95 ec765bce51ec028183fe55e55b730229012fd082001caa61435cd5522e3d6]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 0] [35a0e81d3adb4d8268e4662471fac6f87a9909bcdbaf431f7dc9a4f4970af9910f 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 732e8e5a09fa8d051ed8d5376b53c891e0a361d296733e7f53f3c59558b9e0]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 1] [7521baa9c85d55c35c946fdc42db853491d48fac55bb604f62eeeclfil8c386d4a6 23 387al 28a3 f26ffec2707552e04a9206fe68cd0ea353d45a913b3fa4d003e]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 2] [89c8ceac288e2780blfdb2588969c9edaf72d842959b0f866d8d776a2327cebb12 efa78058c28e7fc6a53 5181000d795dal 7 5cf8eac08f96fl d2be4 7ba5208a9]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 3] [5120f21a10ca4dc62d46dbd31dal70blec42a09eaa4468d8287ce6fe6c4ad86bd9 2f53dd8cla47f95862089bd4250f0caldaed532d4bd44b39a4f612847c072f]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 4] [8a6cdb28c24306f45093ee9dc98flb4d78f0a6079255c6afaf6d91e6b57d64261f 197c492c85835c76e928aab85ee28955e54e933e00d42balale72dd248095b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 5] [82a5d17b3ff4ele179508de437c0e515b3c971c68af27af472a55ffe55c7b0215f 53b43b03f4ae45blce786e7c5387blcce14278b6c93544628a25e5d6c93149]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 6] [72cf3d9bflbd4c0ba320eb60f9b94e65f720489713dalc419388eb30cfb379480a 49f4f880721 bb408fa6b9e6c8f6e7b3c32e6c31 ed571 f3a3c3260ccf9ae996]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 7] [71c4cd3124f67b92fec5610e5d48f3be29c62a9228edef96762b20651b08aa653d a9ebf4444aa4ab579478e08e6e86de04491ccab5718ae48164b23e8a3bd24a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 8] [afc78a3ca53f3a7abbb7eb95f77601a9f35c60661451b15b450d15b6a129ec64c7 b9c645dcld5526caebae7be0eb2c28c2fecc3cabb8 lf6ae3 7178f652b8f31 c]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 16 \\ INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION As this Court has recognized, \"federal judicial supervision of school systems was intended as a 'temporary measure' [and the] ultimate objective [is] to return school districts to the control of local authorities. n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) quoting Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). Accordingly, supervising courts \"must... provide an orderly means for withdrawing from that control when it is shown that the school district has attained the requisite degree of compliance. n Id. In 2006, the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSDn or the \"District\") School Board voted unanimously to seek unitary status. A complete copy of the . 2006 school board minutes is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit A. 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 16 In 2007, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 395, which is now codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 (the \"Act\"). In the Act, the State of Arkansas promises to \"compensate school districts that seek and obtain unitary status.\" These actions by the Board and the State alleviated NLRSD's political and financial concerns about seeking unitary status. Thus, NLRSD hereby simultaneously files its Petition for Unitary Status and this brief, which provides the support for its position that NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. History of Plan The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. V. Pulaski County Special Schoo/ Dist. on December 12, 1990 (\"NLR Plan\") is actually to be found in several documents beginning with NLRSD's original plan submission in 1986. This submission was the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial . Order of the Court of ..  Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to [NLRSD]\" which NLRSD filed on March 17, 1986 (\"March Plan\"). This initial submission addressed the interdistrict violations enumerated by the Court of Appeals in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special Schoo/ Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). The district court, however, required NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations, as well. Therefore, NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District' (\"October Supplement\"). 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 16 In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan consisting of the March Plan and October Supplement. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties. The first NLR Plan modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum that addressed the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 regarding student assignment. This motion was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. The next modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988, and was approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. This modification provided for the re.organization of NLRSD secondary schools. beginning. in the 1990-91 - school year: Additionally, Central.Junior. High Scho.ol was,closedand:-the;studeat assignment zones:.for the remaining three: junior high schools were redrawn to .. -- ensure comparable racial balance. These.modifications were implemented at the. beginning of the 1990-91 school year. Additional modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' \"lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" which was created in response to the finding that the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School districts had engaged i11 discriminatory actions that contributed to the disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the two districts and 3 --\"'- , ___ -\" --vv-- \" .. , '\".. \"'-''-''\"'u111c 111..,. ,..,.v , 11cu u;;J,~ 11uu, rayt::: \"+ or 10 Little Rock School District. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special - School Dist. No. 1, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Certain provisions of this Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. Another modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" filed on October 25, 1989 which satisfied paragraph VIII D. of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be. implemented. by NLRSD with. funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement This. Stipulation also gave effect to and superseded that portion of the. original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory edtication programs whicn could be implemented, only with addittonal State funds. On April 29, 1992, the elements of the NLR Plan were consolidated and published in a single document (the \"1992 Plan Handbook\") for distribution to NLRSD officials and for their ease of reference in implementing the provisions of the plan. On August 31, 1995, NLRSD reached an agreement regarding unitary . status in the area of student assignment and Elementary Gifted and Talented. 4- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 16 The Court approved the release of NLRSD from court supervision on student assignments and Elementary Gifted and Talented on September 18, 1995. On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an order approving LRSD's Revised Plan, which stated that it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of LRSD.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 993 (E.D. Ark. 2001). Thus, NLRSD is no longer required to comply with the lnterdistrict Plan, and the sole measure of NLRSD's unitary status is its compliance,with the NLR Plan. In compliance with an order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Office: of DesegregattcmrManitoring;;(\"ODM~). was:create.d-. Se:e. Littlfl'.Ro.ck:.Scbo.ol: Dist .. K . PulaskLCa . ., Special.Schoof Dist .. Na. 1,, 92:t F.2cL t371, 1'3.8.\u0026amp; (8!h CJr. _ - 1990). Tl:ieu:ol~.of the ODM wasto; monitortbe\"c.omplianc.e;:of thecpartie.s,,with:the  settlement.plan\u0026amp;-.and:.the-, .settleme0t agreement : Se.a Id:. andddttle~'Roc~ Se.boo/', -. DisL 1,L PulaskLCa ... Spe.ciaLSchool.Dist Na .. i, .. 769. E.Supp __ .1483.; 1495. (E.D .. '- Ark. 1'991). Legal Standards The standard for determining whether a school district which is subject to judicially supervised desegregation plan is now well-established: the district must have acted in good faith to implement its plan and must have achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of that plan. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 16 A. Good Faith In order to establish that NLRSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has \"complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that \"good faith\" is demonstrated when, . . . the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duratior-i of the school district's. compliance record must be considered: .... a court should give particular attention to the school system's '- record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision.\" Id. B. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving \"good faith,\" NLRSD must also establish that it is in \"substantial compliance\" with the NLR Plan. As this Court has stated, \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 16 - burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for \"substantial compliance\": (l]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' . . . [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988; 1027 (E.D. .. Ark. 2002) citing..Cody V. Hillard; 139 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. -.1998). Also. in Little Rock Schoo/Dist., this Court.more succinctly set out.its: test for substantiat compliance when it stated. that it. would be,. \"required. to examine whether any-of LRSD's: failur.es-to comply wittr the Revised Plan in the  \\ six challenged areas are 'serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantiat. noncompliance'; and (2) 'to cast doubt' on [NLRSD's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. at 1035-1036. Thus, \"substantial compliance\" is not legalistic compliance with each \"jot and tiddle\" of the North Little Rock Plan but, instead, is a measure of the NLRSD's history of working to comply with its plan as a predictor of whether it has experienced a change in its operations and attitudes such that the it will continue to comply with the Constitution after the being released from court supervision. 7 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 16 Record of Compliance Declaration of NLRSD's unitary status is proper because the District has maintained substantial compliance with its plan in good faith throughout the two decades it has been under this Court's supervision. The discussion below details the evidence of NLRSD's good faith and compliance with its plan. The discussion also explains how NLRSD recognizes the latest research, methodologies, laws and technology while continuing to remain faithful to the goals and values of its desegregation plan. A. Evidence of Compliance As detailed in the October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status. of Implementation of North Little Rock.School District's Desegregation. Plan (\"1988. Status Report\"), NLRSD acted, expeditiously,and,comprel:tensb.tely to .. implement its original: dese.gre.gati:an plan approved:,by the; Court in 1987': A complete copy of the 1988: Status Report- with7 appendi:~esr is. attached: to the: Petition. filed .. herewith as. Exhibits: 8(1) to B.(.t1)_ NLRSD. continued to, comply with the 1987 version . of the desegregation plan, which was significantly incorporated into the plan approved by the court in 1992. Soon thereafter, NLRSD initiated and completed a self-audit (\"1994 SelfAudif). A complete copy of the 1994 Self-Audit detailing the status of the individual provisions of the 1992 plan is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit C. The 1994 Self-Audit analyzed the specific nature of the 188 plan provisions and detailed NLRSD's compliance with each. The 1994 Self-Audit also identified the following factors for each of the individual provisions: (1) the 8 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 16 administrator or group responsible for execution; (2) the date of implementation; and (3) references to other audits and reports monitoring the particular compliance activity. Accordingly, the 1994 Self-Audit provides significant evidence of NLRSD's dedication to complying with its desegregation plan. After the Court approved NLRSD's unitary status for student assignment in 1995 and for elementary gifted and talented in 1996, NLRSD continued to monitor the status of the other provisions of its desegregation plan. NLRSD submitted periodic status reports detailing its findings to the Court and other parties pursuant to the lnterdistrict Plan until this plan was superseded by the modifications to the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan and the Pulaski County School District's Desegregation Plan in 1998. Thereafter, NLRSD continued to provide information. as requested by the ODM for its monitoring of the District. Moreover, from 1987 to date, no motion has been filed: by any party alleging violations of or seeking to enforce provisions of. NLRSD's plan or settlement agreements or otherwise alleging that NLRSD was not in compliance ,. with its desegregation plan. On June 9, 2004, the ODM published its report on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan (\"2004 ODM Status Report\"). A complete copy of the 2004 ODM Status Report is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit D. In analyzing the nine \"discrete divisions of the NLRSD desegregation plan, ODM relied on its direct observations of NLRSD employees, ODM's interviews with NLRSD employees,. reports from the Arkansas Department of Education and data submitted by 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 10 of 16 \\ NLRSD. 2004 ODM Status Report at 1-2. Taken as a whole, the ODM's independent and objective report demonstrates that NLRSD has substantially complied with the desegregation plan in good faith. B. Evolution of the Plan The very heart of NLRSD's desegregation plan is its goal to remedy the effects of the segregative acts which this Court found the District to have committed. These segregative acts, originally identified by this Court in 1984, are enumerated in the Introduction of the 1992 Plan Handbook. To ensure that the desegregation goal was accomplished, the District's desegregation plan outlined specific programs, services and activities that NLRSD used or proposed to use at the time the plan was created. However, \"[mJany of the educational approaches that were incorporated into the desegregation plan-have become outdated.\" 2004 ODM Status Report at 1. Accordingly, NLRSD has. modified the specific programs or \"has implemented different procedures and . programs intended to more effectively achieve desegregation goals.\" Id. Such modifications are not a deviation from NLRSD's desegregation plan but, instead, reflect its commitment to the principles of its desegregation plan as educational standards and best practices evolve. Indeed, it is critical to remember that desegregation \"plans are a floor, not a ceiling when analyzing whether NLRSD has met the standard of substantial compliance with the plan. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schoof.District No. 1, et al. , 769 F. Supp 1491 , 1495 (E.D. Ark. 1991). NLRSD . never agreed to adhere to plan specifics into perpetuity. In fact, this Court Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 11 of 16 instructed the districts to maintain \"sufficient flexibility to deal with changing conditions and meet unforeseen developments\" with regard to their desegregation plans. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 769 F. Supp. 1483, 1490 (E.D. Ark. 1991). Moreover, the 2002 testimony of the Joshua Intervenor's expert witness, Dr. Terrence Roberts, further supports this position. Dr. Roberts was one of the \"Little Rock Nine,\" who continued his education by obtaining a bachelor's degree is sociology, a master's degree in social work and a doctorate in psychology. Dr. Roberts specifically warned against what he termed \"compliance mentality,\" instructing the districts to focus \"not on the letter of the plan, but the spirit of the plan.\" See the Excerpted Transcript of July. 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing,. attached .. to. the: Petition filed: herewith as Exhibit Eat p ... 630. and p .. 649. NLRSD has done~exactly that.. After implementing:the:plan in: the:ear1y 1990s, specific. NLRSD programs: have: evolved. or hav.e bee' replace.a b.y more effective- or:- perfected. programs, which continue to combat segre.gative. effects .. while. als.o.. recognizing the mandates of state and federal laws, the enlightenment of research and numerous advances in technology and instructional methodology. This evolution is characteristic of the foresight of NLRSD. The District takes great pride in preserving an understanding of the latest research redefining best practices, implementing cutting edge programs that ultimately become the requisite practice or the norm, improving programs that have become archaic and replacing programs that have become obsolete. 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 12 of 16 The following examples illustrate the necessity of educational program evolution and NLRSD's continuing good faith commitment to its desegregation goals as outlined in its plan. The NLR Plan provides for a Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth (\"HIPPY\") to \"be established in lower socio-economic attendance zones.\" NLR Plan page 34. As a Compensatory Education program, HIPPY was designed to prepare lower socio-economic pre-school children for success when they entered kindergarten. The year after HIPPY was originally implemented; it served fifty (50) fouryear- old students, utilizing home instructors to educate parents by providing reading. material to use wjth their children ... The. HIPPY program eveataally- evolved. with. the District.taking. a more- active. role .in the .. pre,..schoaUearning. by, offering classroom-basect-early childhood':edu.catio:tt and:ihcr:easing, the capacity,  of the program .. In more recent years, the program replaced the .home instructors,. with. a \"parent liaison\" trained in Minnesota Early Learning Design. The parent liaison \"teaches parents the child development principles that pertain most directly to school readiness [by] maintain[ing] parent contact [and] conduct[ing] workshops[.]\" 2004 ODM Report p. 23. NLRSD's current Early Childhood Program, the perfected progeny of HIPPY, serves approximately five hundred (500) three-year-old, four-year-old and five-year-old children, whose eligibility for admission is based on certain factors including poverty, low birth weight, abuse or neglect, and English as a second language. Id. The program also offers an 12 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 13 of 16 infant and toddler section the children of older NLRSD students, preparing these children for education, while preventing their parents from dropping out of school. Additionally, NLRSD's Early Childhood Program supplements  the curriculum developed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services' Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education by emphasizing readiness for kindergarten but allowing teachers to begin reading instruction if they deem a child ready. Id. Early childhood programs like NLRSD's are widely found to be beneficial, though they have not been implemented on a wide spread basis. Other significant examples of NLRSD's continuing commitment to the principles of its plan are the District's Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, which include. the Alternative School program and. Student Assignment Classes program. NLR Plan page, 37-38 .. NLRSD's original Alternative S,c hool served students identifieda s at risk of dropping out o.f school and was located: at the: Boys and Girls Club. However, the Distri-ct \"decided to develop its. own alternative. programs using. District resources~ when budg.et issues and a series of personnel changes at the Boys and Girls Club \"resulted in a weak and ineffective alternative program.\" 2004 ODM Report at page 47. Currently, NLRSD has five sites that serve as alternative schools based on the age of the students. Additionally, the SAC program, included in the provisions of the 1992 plan, prevents students from dropping out of school by providing an inschool suspension program, removing the students from the classroom but keeping them in a supervised educational environment \"These classes have 13 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 14 of 16 '\\ been a consistent force in providing students an opportunity to continue their education while they are ... in the discipline system.\" Id. NLRSD now \"goes beyond the [original programs set out] in its desegregation plan by offering a dropout retrieval program at Shorter College and providing a highly focused program for credit deficient students in the Graduate Academy.\" Id. at 50. In its 2004 report, the ODM \"commend[ed] the NLRSD for the many programs it has in place to serve as alternatives to putting students out of school [and b]ecuase the NLRSD allows students and parents to choose among alternative education placements and home suspensions, a student's educational future is determined by the home in conjunction with the schooldistrict\" Id .. Conclusion The purpose, of. court supervisien was-, to create a:. unitary schael: s.ystemc. from what was once a \"dual school system, establis~ing and maintaiming ..: a. system in which the interests. of. both black. and white students were equal. by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Today, three of the District's seven Board members are African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains a bi-racial committee. As a district which \"has been largely characterized by an absence of rancor and dissension, NLRSD has consistently avoided \"potentially volatile decisions\" and made smooth transitions in its programs. 2004 ODM Report at page 45. 14 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 15 of 16 \"The NLRSD superintendent has been an admirable force for collaboration and accord as he has involved both the internal [faculty, parents, students] and external community in many weighty district matters. .. demonstrating wise sensitivity to the adage that people will support what they help create ... By avoiding surprises, meaningfully involving in changes those who are most affected by those changes, maintaining a congenial and professional demeanor, and consisting treating others with respect, the district's CEO has fostered the growth of cohesiveness in tt,e NLRSD and promoted significant level of harmony between the district and the community.\" Id. NLRSD's School Board reflects the racial make up of the community. As a cooperative group, the Board weighs the interests of each student and parent equally irrespective of their race; so that it is no longer necessary for the Court to be an artificial voice for the black students. Thus, NLRSD has been an exemplary model of a district that has substantially complied in good faith: with the goals of its desegregation plan and, as a result, has become unitary. As Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon observed, \"desegregation is- a state- of- mind:.\" NlRSD has certainly achieved this ultimate goal. The Court should note that NLRSD has stipulated that the Joshua lntervenors may have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition given the significance of this matter. The parties agree that this would not affect the schedule for discovery or any hearing dates. Additionally, the Court should be aware Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 provides that the District would be eligible for reimbursement of the legal fees associated with seeking unitary status if the Court makes such a declaration by June 14, 2008. Therefore, it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner that will allow resolution before this date. 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 16 of 16 '\\ For the reasons set out above, NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for-Separate Defendant North Little-Rock School District; certify I electronically. filed:-the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which s.ent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 16 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of2 polly- From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21 , 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, (4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 9/21/2007 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.wilJiams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091 ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7f0ed13a826f81bc0ad20af9d8b8lc92266dal]] 9/21/2007 Page 1 of2 From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:21 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:20 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4145] Brief in Support: Docket entry modified to correct docket text referring to 4143, Addendum. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electrQnically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Cbachkin 9/21/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 9/21/2007 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 - Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7fDed13a826f81bc0ad20af'9d8b81c92266dal]] 2/5/2008 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:59 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 9:59 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4146(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPTS filed for dates of 1/20-21/07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115] Notice of Appeal, Court Reporters: Cheryl Nelson, Judith Ammons. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:01 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:01 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4147(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115) Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Christa R Newburg. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:07 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Record Sent to USCA This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:07 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4148 Docket Text: Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals: 3 volumes transcript of 1/20-21/07 \u0026amp; 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing re [ 4115] Notice of Appeal, ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/27 /2007] [FileNumber= 1004 704-0 ] [97eab3e6780fb09ea7784309543659d76e08dec9db6dce657f7d7822323351423d4 a79fe0418ad40882c95eb21f56dl b293280c15851a77699e4468d4118bf19]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org September 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 1 - 2007 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Siner~,::::-' cDs~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rod\u0026lt;  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007. Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. San1uelJones,ill Mitchell, Willian1s, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cikttfh co m IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OCT 1 - 2007 OFACEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2007 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. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3: 18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/28/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4149 Docket Text: NOTICE of filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/28/2007] [FileNumber=1006413-0 ] [b5cc 13fb999668db3c36be094 79de878fl e3b5f 459c26302c403f897 a88cbe0edf5 327e62134 752a29520865fc5bbad02007ftb3b95435dc 186490941 ca8eaa]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1763","title":"Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-07/2007-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1763"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, amended order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project mangement tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED JUL -9 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/,\\PPELLEE V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA INTERVENORS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come the Joshua Intervenors, et al., by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfuU~, request an additional fifteen (15) days in order to allow time to have this matter resolved between the parties as set forth by the Court's Order Qr in which to have appellant's brief filed. This request is made with the understanding that no further extensions for filing appellant's brief would be requested or allowed in the event that this matter was not 1Iediated or otherwise disposed of. , Appellant's counsel has been unable to make direct contact with appellee's counsel on either !uly 5 or July 6, 2007 and can not state whether appellee's counsel objects to Lll! delay. There is no prejudice to the appellee by the request. Respectfully Submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 Certificate of Service ' I, John W _ Walker, do hereby state that on this 6th day of July, 2007, a copy o:f the foregoing Motion has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the C M/EF, which.shall send notification of such filing to the following: Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net tmiller@fec.net M. SatnuelJones,m siones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com linda.calloway@jli.com Scott Paris Richardson . Scott.richardson@arkansasag.gm: agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel via United States Mail, postage prepaid: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ls/John W. Walker 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilAn 011111200? IN Tl IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DIS .l .l(ICr 0.t AKKAMSA:S W .b:sT~KN Vl V 1:SION PAGE 03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL . DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIERlNE KNIGIIT, ET AL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S A n.rTJ'l .1 .,-.~.,..,...... ~,..,..,..,-.,-..\"'-,.,... ,..,..,.Y,...9-- --. _,..._, I 00YuJ.1u .. c11:1 \"''''\"--'.\u0026amp;.=.ru,11,u ru.1,1111,..u ur u.uw1 For its response to the arguments of the Joshua Intervenors at a telephone hearing on June 27, 2007, the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) states: 1. Joshua argues that \"Little R.ock is appropriately stiU in [this case) because there's relief that still must be provided by Little Rock in order to facilitate the agreements of t'he other 'two districts, so that it would-still be appropriate for Little Rock to make financial contributions to this matter.\" (Tr. of June 27, 2007 telephone hearing, p. 6) Joshua also makes the following argument: Id. atp. 7. Llttle Rock whHe as the plaintiffs sought the relief, and part of the ,-.-Jjpf jo ;,.,,.~,H c-,.,.;M ~ncl'bfll\"l:I anA foJ..oftOI ;.- lA- tn. l\\A tt,.,tt,,. 1'1 ~,..., - --- ,..., ..,_..., __ ,._,  - , .... __ ... .., ....... , --  ,w  '\" -.v ,A - \"'- _, A,11, ._,.,,, 1\\6 .,.,,f .... __ ...... . \"\"A \"\"'\"'\" .......... -A.-h ,..A1,,,.AA,,,..  .,.,J...:.-J,.. _,, -\u0026amp; ..... ,.._ ,,,_ __ ;_ AAf .. .o. ... .,,,,.,., ~ ' \"\"''\"' ~..,.., .,,...,. .\u0026amp;MU!J\u0026amp;\u0026amp;\"' ..,~,,vu.a~ wuu.,,, cau VA.\"''\"''\"' Cl.A\"' .1.1a, a;;G Llt\"J.~ Rvek :.;till !i@ a w11ti.r,~lli,,\u0026amp; vtlige1tivJ, tv ii.~ tv ~t t~4.at what W.ili i'c'1u11cd l:,y tl1e p,iui.lc:, wiil, Jl:;:,pc~i iv. ihc uli,c, ui::il,j~t:s i:s iwpiCJlltmicu. Page 1 of 3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilP.r1 07 /11 /?007 Pag~ 2 of 3 2- These arguments do not justify or authorize the court to continue to require LRSD's par6cipation in the lunding of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ''ordC1'ed the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision\" of the desegregation efforts of LRSD. PCSSD and NLRSD. LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528, 529 (8th Cir. 2006). This Court has released LRSD \"from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM and Joshua based upon its having subs~ntially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" Order Declaring the little Rock School District Unitary, February 23, 2007, p. 49. This Order has not been stayed and r,ernains in effect pending appeal. 3. Since ODM was created ''to assist the district coun in its supel'Vision\" of LRSD, and the Court has held \"that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring,\" then tbere is no practical reason for requiring LRSD to continue to participate in the funding of ODM. More importantly, however, LRSD has achieved unitary status and is no longer subject to the Court's jurisdiction to impose further remedies such as a requirement to continue to fund the '. ODM- Board of Edu.catwn v. Dowelt 498 U.S- 237, 247 (1991) (\"From the very first, federal supervision of local schooJ ~ystems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.\"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the con_trol of local autttorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our govemmental system.\") WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's request that LRSD continue to participate in the funding of OJ\u0026gt;M should be denied. Page 2of3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 usoc Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4131 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 400 We!it Capitol Little :Rocle, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 05 I certify that on July ll, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th .. r'r\"1..+ ,,ci,,n- ~hp. r\\1~r1: ~ 1'tA.., u1ftirl, f'.lht.:!:ll 11,.,...,~ nl\":-- ,_.,. ..:,}:;_ ...,._.,, ,.c, - ---- \"'JY .....A J\u0026amp;Af  .... -   'tlllll-- ..,_,,_ ,,V-,1;.,,A;!..'.~.U-;-!'\u0026amp;\\'!'\\, Vn 4~ ~t\"\"-'t6, '....\".. ~f' .1.;.,.;,'1_\",',\u0026gt;e1:\",!' ,1.1~ . ~~~- F-,.,JJ-nu.._.r..;..n. e,. Scott. rjchardson@ai.state.ar. u~ sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@J1j.com johnwalkeratty@aol com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf r)ff;.,..D .,,,./ Tl.o~.t!l,~ .t!!!J -,;.,,..,,,, ~l_,.n ;,_., ~, - ........ - ..,._ --Vi'lol't:,,'..,.0'--'..._v,, AAv .. \"\"\"\"\"\"\" 1 TT-: ..-. .... 1'.Y .. ...: - - - 1 n1 .... ,.. .. ~ VUAVU ~Cl.1.,1.VUCi41. A 4,04,0 ,..,,... TJ7 r,.ro_:_.,,,. , c,  . ,: . .. iD,-,~ A.k-r YT., \"\"\"'1}'1\\Vl, JUAL'-' .J.U7.J T :~.,'t .. '\"-   '  -\" 'T\"t. ,..,,,_,.../'1,4 J..,j.LL.lC ~\"'-\"-, ~ / ,1,,,,1,VJ.. Mr. Qayton Blackstock ivir. Mark Burnett iOiO W. Third 5treet Little Rock, AK 72201 JudgeJ. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Pase 3 of 3 Isl Christopher Heller 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4132 Filed 07/12/2007 Page, of 1 Mr. John W. Walker J,..1-,., UT ,111,..11,.~r n \" .,..., , . ,. ,.     ~..,, A,a ol; JV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEAN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICH-\"RO SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 6w W. CAPITOL, r.iuOM 423 Facsimilei /e01) 004-51\u0026lt;69 July 12, 2.007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, ~t al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: PAGE 02 I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helpinp; fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is rip;ht. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any ~pecific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thumi:iy; .Jn\\y J.9, ?007. Original to the Qerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Th.Qmas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4125 Filed 0o_/')7/'XJ07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE CUO VW , ...,._,-, 1 UL, HUUM 423 , , .,,,-rt r .n,.,,,._,,. ,. ,.,,.,11.,,..,.,,. _,,,,.,.,.,. ,,.,.,.,. ._. f --- .,..,._,,, -fllY\"ll'IV-,. ILLV T~.,) FacslmMe (5011 604-5149 June 27, .2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, F,ldrecl~e \u0026amp; f'.l~rlr. T .T ;p - T Ittl_,. ~.t:\"t:-.k Region.c: rentAI' 400 WP.-d. r-.1-1,:n-i-tn--l -A---\"'-\".\"... \"-'-\" S.tlt~ 21]1)1) T ,tt! .. 1),-.,-\\,- \"1) ,.,..,,,1'11 -,,.n,, _ .......... _ \"\"\"'\"'-\"'' .. _, '--v ... ...,_.,,.J Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Mr. Heller: PAGE 06 P~nA 1 nf 1 ~ . I held a telephone conference tx.,day with all the parties except the LRSD. The primary purpose was discussing Judge Roaf's appointment as the new Director of 0DM. She was present durinjt the telephone conference. Mr. Walker expressed the opinion that LRSD is still 14in the case\" for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the 0DM, including Judge Roaf's i:alllry r J:i:1n n.,:it ~v~ri ttiJs point much th,;mght, but had concluded th.at J . R.~n i41 ''01Jt'' ~i.nr~ It ~..J.1.~ ~~ 4'!d.a.re\u0026lt;l .mita.\"J. JJn!et e., c!-c-c.!TT:e, the Cc'(!rt nf An~~lc ,f,.,.lo,.,,.c tn thP ,.,., ... ~\"' . -- ..  :,:,;  - __ .. ,,,_., _ _ - . , . .. .,._ ..... - .. J  I would like your response to 1his. You will probably want to order a transcript of the telephone ,c~nferen-c-e C~fer~ ~Z-r'f.d1r.i; :,v tha.t yvu ~, ~ ~~r. 11/G~kriic'~ ~-~\"t-fiL.- iX'irtLS. ,Please let me have your response by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Original to the Ocrk of the Court cc: Thr1 H.nnor:it:,)1'1 .Ji:,l'I Th,:1m~s R?.y 0th,-,- r,mng.oJ nf Jl.o,v,r,-1 Page 1 of 1 Cordially, /s/ Wm, R.WilsonJr. I 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. united states District Judge bU0 West Capito~, Room 4~~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.604.5140 Fax - 501.604.5149 fax *: 19-371-0100 da'te: July 13, 2007 !'\u0026gt;nbj~ct:: I T.Rsn ___________________ ...... NOTES: I 5 including cover page I I think this is more than what vou I are lookina for, but better toolmuch than too little!! If this I isn' t what vou are lookina for. lolease call~me at 604-514i and I l~ill continue the search. I Mary I \\\" PAGE 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 12, 2007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helping fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is right. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM, and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any specific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thursday, July 19, 2007. \\ Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 \\ MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;950536@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; cc: ubject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U . S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was e ntered on 7/12/2007 1:45 PM CDT and filed on 7/12/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv- 866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4132 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts .gov/cgi-bin/show_case_ doc?4132 , 26052 ,,MAGIC ,,, 2005701 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER Joshua intervenors are to file any specific statutory or case law in support of their position re. ODM funding by noon July 19, 2007 Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/12/07 . (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com \u0026amp;:hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ~ hristopher J . Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel J bnes, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Claybb rn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82- cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Li ttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewel l yn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . A Post Office Box 818 W,rort Smith , AR 72 90 2- 0818 Office o f Desegregation Monitor One Union Nat iona l Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson  Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. ost Office Box 818 ort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/12 /2007 ] [FileNumber=950535-0 ] [6eeb968ba3a74ea39c6ded7f0a1968bddaaf99clldb3e7159930b41aebbda760ac6dd4299be529c f01534577b554f6792c2992da40e8b8753fb9437be068dac4] J  llfJ L ,~ DURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURyAS'TERN d~cT~BAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 g 2007 WESTERN DIVISION   LITILEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 17, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are - any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this _if.!_ day of July, 2007. RECEIVED JUL f O 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION Jt10NITORING ~------ STATESDrsTRICT JUDGE Office of Desegregation Monitoring l.ln!t9d stal8s Ola1rlct Cell.It  Eastam District of Arlcarllas RECEIVED July 17, 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF The Honorable William R. Wilson DESEGREGATION MON/TOR/NG Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol. Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Dear Judge Wtlson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Cspltol, Suite 1895 llttle Rock, Arlc:ansas 72201 (601} 37'6-620\u0026gt; Fax (fi01) 371-0100 Attached for your approval is the proposed ODM budget for 2006-07, the fiscal year just concluded. The format of the budget document follows that ofODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. The LRSD has requested that we provide the amount of accumulated vacation days for the ODM staff so that they may discharge their accrued shared of this :financial obligation. However, we  have not included this sum in the 2006-07 budget pending resolution of the iss~ of the future operation of ODM and ofLRSD's participation in the 2007-08 budget In addition, we have a small amount of money ($2,603.25) from the sale of smplus furniture that will be carried over to the 2007-08 fiscal year. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, ~ft,,)/ Director, Office of o\"::::l.on Monitoring Enc. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2006-07 BUDGET REVENUE 2005-08 2005,08 200M7 Budget ~ Proposed Budaat State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LRSD Budget allocation 119,348.00 119,348.00 112,358.00 Minus aedll from pnwlous year (1,283.00) (1,283.00} 4,324.00 Equals LRSD'a share of the budget 120,831.00 120,831.00 108,032.00 NL.RSC Budget allocatlon 43,327.00 43,327.00 41,786.00 Mlnua aedll from prrricus year (-488.00) (-488.00) 1,608.00 Equals NLRSO's shara of the budge! 43,793.00 43,793.00 40,178.00 PCSSD Budget allocaClon 84,084.00 84,084.00 77,999.00 Minus credit from previous year (904.00) (904.oo) 3,002.00 Equals PCSSD'a share of the budget 84,968.00 84,988.00 74,997.00 Interest 2,398.58 Tolal Revenue 446,739.00 '148, 138.56 432,141.00 Nole: 1118 un of1he cndlB In lhe above chm1 II the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, lndudlng bank lnlnat eemed. EW!ll'J budget C'/dl, 00M aJllies lhls amount IDwmd each IChool dlllrtcl'8 bu\"'8IBd allocallon. Bolh 1hat allocallon and the c:nldlt .. delelmlned ~ the proposed budget by lhe pnMOUS ,_., OclDber 1 erlRll!nent numbn, than adjuslBd accordlngly wlWI Iha erllDllment numbn fir' the CUITlnt yw become avallabla. EXPENDmJRES 200\u0026amp;-08 2005-GI 2D04MJ7 Budget ExpenclltUla Proposed Budfd Communk:atlorm 8,000.00 8,380.12 4,805.00 Dues and Fees 276.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 FoodSenllca D.00 0.00 0.00 Management Servtcea 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per1odlcals 0.00 135.00 108.00 Priming \u0026amp; Binding 6,250.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Servicea 1,700.00 722.50 783.00 Rent 62,584.00 51,246.16 41,\"54.00 Repelra\u0026amp;Malnteralce -400.00 0.00 162.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salariee 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Beneflla 74,322.00 73,681.16 76,020.00 Staff D881opi1ient 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUpplJe8 3,500.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel 1,525.00 90.32 0.00 Insurance 800.00 601.00 606.00 Tatal Expendlluraa 448,739.00 439,338.17 432,141.00 Dlffllrwlc:e (Income minus EJq,erxllturw 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2006-07 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]be amount previously ordered fur the Pulaski County :Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied towatd the budget of the office of the MetropolitanSupen,isor .... Thebalaor.eofthebudgetwillbeapportionedamongtbe school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]be officeprmously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office ofDategregation Monitoring. ... 20lll-07 lludgat 1ar1 %al 200l-47 2DOIMl8 200I-01 EnralJ- TCICld Budget Crwdlt 8udglt ment Enroll- Allaclllaa (Budglt Pa.,rmnt ment not~ LRSO 28,470 41.40 112,388 4,124 108.032 NLR8D 9,842 18.00 41,7115 1,808 40,178 PCSSD 18,374 33.80 TT,\u0026amp; 3,00'l 74,997 SIIIBafM 200,000 200,000 .. Tdal 64,886 100.00 ~141 8,1134 423;Jm Desmibed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to cfetemri~ eacli district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arbosas' contn\"bution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnl\u0026gt;Ution). 3. Each district is cn:dited with its pro nta share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The S1Dil is the amount each district is to contribatc to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact m:nount due fur its share of ODM'sbudgct. - EXPENDITURES N.: Definitions of expense categories are based on the .Arkansas School Finalfclal Accounting Manual. Communieadom: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages \u0026lt;\u0026gt;r information. This category includes telephone services aa well as postage machine rental and postage. 1-=1 ~ .. 1-~1 The decrw In 1he 2006-07 budget 1B due ID a negolalBd ,die wllh a 118W aervlca pruvldar flld a reduced number of phone Ines Wti1 !he ollk:a. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or aiae,,smeot fi\u0026gt;r m.eDJbcrship .in professional or other organi:zatfons or mmociations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such aa conference registration fees. Equipment: Expenditures fbr the initial, additional, and repl8'YMlent items or equipment. such as ~ and machinery, 0.00 Manageu.ent Serriccl: Services pex~ by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy atca or in gem:ral operations. This category includes consultants, indmdually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in confelence ur through systematic studies. --:1 ~J-.:::1 Pagc3 - Periodkals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at R:gular iDtcrvals ofless than a ye,ar and continuing for an indefinite period. 1-~00l ~~1-..::1 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design aod printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2005-08 Budget 200MB 2006-07 PropoNd ExpencllturN Budget 5,460.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Professional and Teelmlcal Sea vie\u0026amp;; Services which by their nature can be per.fanned only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1-=1 ~1-..:::1 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary end long-range use. 200l-08Budgat 200s-GI 2008-o7 Propoaed l!xpendllurN Budget 52,564.00 51,245.18 41,-464.00 The decnsa8e In 1he 200\u0026amp;-07 budget 18 due to a radudlon In office apace. Repaln and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and roairrtenaoce !la'Vices which restore equipment t.o its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contmctua1 agreements covering the mainter,an~ end operation of equipment and equipment systc.ms. 1-::1 --=:001-~1 Page4 - Salaries: Salarus are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennaneot or temporary nature. 200\u0026amp;-48Budget 2005-08 2008-G'TPropoeed Expendltulva Budget . 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2006-07 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. flllmeof -- 20GI-07 Em..,_ 8alaJy Salary Andl98Roaf' 1,373 GenaJonas' 63,438 48,480 Margie Powell 74,880 77,354 HonamSmllh* 74,890 84,694 Polly Ramer 66,212 68,081 UndaBlyarlt 31,173 32,189 Total 300,803 302,181 1Judge Andrea Roaf began a !he Oll9dDr d ODM on June '/1, 'l!X1/. 'Gaut Jona raduc:ad his wm time fnJm 415 ht 2005-08 ID 315 llme for ~7. In addllloo, Gene elacfl 1D recelw payment for fGUIU8I lneunmcapnlffllana In Beu af1he lnlUl'ance benetllsand lllsaalary ra1lacll lhatdedalon. Gene l8Slgned 3-15-07. His sallly Includes 45 dayl of aa:umulallld vatlarl. 31-knce Smllt realgnad ~-Hie aalary lndudaa 33.5 day\u0026amp; of 8DCUIIIJlalBd vacabl. Bencfia: Benefi1Bare1he amounts paid on behalf of mnployees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and abo~ Such payments an, fringe benefit payments. 20CHl,08 Budgat 2GO\u0026amp;,,OI 2Qae.o7Propoeed E!xpendlturN Budget 74,322.00 73,881.16 78,020.00 Beow a breakdown .ofeachemnw,cc's2006-07 . 1 is bv \" : . .  frirui benefits Name car 8oclll RilClnt- Hoapllal,- Litt Dental Hoapltal Short Total Allowance Sec:urftr ,_ -lzdan lnL fndela1111J Tenn ..... Roaf 105.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.03 Jena 720,00 3,783.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,'4\u0026amp;5.92 POMJII 1200.00 5,1173.13 10,997.80 3,137.98 32.84 275.79 60.98 82.88 21,740.93 8mllh 1200.00 8,326.44 12,025.17 3,143.84 32.84 275.78 80.118 62.88 23,128.49 Rimer 4,364.21 8,128.48 3,162.72 32.84 275.78 60.88 62.81 18,077.93 Biyant 2,G\u0026gt;.17 4,507.80 3,137.98 20.40 275.78 80.98 82.88 10,485.83 Tdal 3,120.00 22,941.80 35,651.03 12,582.28 118.32 1,103.04 243.84 251 .62 78,019.93 Pages Supplies: Expcnditurcs for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid fur material items of an expc:ndablenature that are consumed, worn 01!4 or detcrlo.rated in use or items that lose their identity through filbrication or incorporation into different or more complex uoits or substunces. 200a-o8 Budget 20ff.fl 2006-07PropoNCI ExpendlturN Budget 3,600.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with naveling or business, such as puking fees. Payments fur per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 90.32 IDJurancc: Expenditures fur all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2GOI-08 Budgllt I ..... I 2008-07 Proposed I e.pendHurw ~ . 800.00 801.00 608.~ Page6 Case : 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Li ttle Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain 6:~~age-Id : \u0026lt;955298@ared.uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W;bject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv- 00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/19/2007 1:41 PM CDT and filed on 7/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4134 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4134,26052, , MAGIC, ,, 200S707 Docket Text: ORDER parties have five days to file any objections to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' s proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 7/19/07. (Attachment: # (1) ODM ' s Proposed Budget) (dac)  82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw. net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 A ames M. Llewellyn, Jr Wl,ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 A 11iam P . Thompson ~ ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007] [FileNurnber=955297-0) [6c47df384b878d59fd66b8156lcflc07443ffbcac49763a0c6f65d4f08918b352ee5f46825al6f0 7e330e6ceeldd6f6528d0a3be42b7224da38ebel00b94eca4)) Document description : ODM ' s Proposed Budget Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007) [FileNurnber=955297-1) [70fa24bb774a735fll633220c3a4c5lfcb2dac89a5d943a47929d3b362649218ca83633c04a44f8 2fb9lc8lb7c64c65b015f9c8220cfa9bc5376dbc5293a0daa)) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DALE CHARLES, ET AL., RECEIVED JUL 31 2001 Off\\CEOf DESEGREGAl\\Otl MOtl\\lORlMG V. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S  RESPONSE TO APPEALLANTS' MOTION TO STAY For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD agrees that this appeal should be stayed during the time the parties are engaged in the mediation process. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Atto~ Christopher Heller '------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL., JUL 31 2007 OFFICE OF v. DESEGREGATION MONITORING. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors/ Appellants \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO INTERVENE For its Response to the Second Amended Motion to Intervene, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. A group of taxpayers, parents and patrons of the LRSD (\"proposed intervenors\") claim to represent the legitimate interests of LRSD and seek to intervene in this appeal. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraphs 21 - and 24. The proposed intervenors assert that the LRSD Board of Directors \"is unable to represent the interests of the District because the majority of the Board - members are under the influence of [Appellants' counsel].\" Id. at paragraph 25. They ask the Court to dismiss this appeal or, alternatively, to enjoin LRSD from seeking to resolve this appeal through the Court's prehearing conference program. Id. at paragraphs 31 and 32; see Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 32A; Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 33. 2. The director of the Court's prehearing conference program has scheduled a prehearing conference for August 9 and 10, 2007 at Little Rock. Appellants have presented LRSD a \"settlement proposal\" which will likely represent their opening position at the prehearing conference. The proposed intervenors believe that the Appellants' settlement proposal should be rejected. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 9 (\"[T]he proposed settlement will create a nightmare for the District\"); paragraph 8 (\"The settlement prop'osed by Mr. Walker would provide Mr. Walker unwarranted contractual leverage over the District);\" paragraph 14 (LRSD's attorney advised the LRSD Board that the \"settlement proposal would unduly bind the District\" and \"likely would violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution .... \"). LRSD has not agreed to Appellants' proposal, however, or decided to do anything more than participate in the Court's prehearing_ conference program. 3. The Intervenors do not provide the Court a sufficient basis to justify the extraordinary use of federal power to prevent opposing parties in litigation from even talking about their differences in an effort to resolve them. The federal 2 - courts have always respected the democratic process and the legitimate auth0rity of local officials. Even in cases involving constitutional violations ( and no illegal acts of any kind are alleged here), federal courts have recognized the importance of returning control to locally elected school officials at the earliest possible time. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.\") 4. The proposed intervenors want to intervene to ask the Court to dismiss this appeal \"for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, on mootness grounds.\" Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 31. Appellants have been ~anted two extensions of time but those have been within the authority of the clerk to grant. Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 37B{a). In a separate response filed today, L~D agrees with Appellants that this appeal should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the prehearing conference. There has therefore been no sanctionable failure to prosecute this appeal. 5. The question of the viability of the Joshua Intervenors as a class will be addressed by the Appellants. LRSD simply sees no legal impediment to its participation in the Court's prehearing conference program and then, if necessary, - seeking to have the District Court's Order affirmed on the merits of this appeal. 3 6. The proposed intervenors contend that the \"[t]he interests of the District and the community represented by the proposed intervenors cannot be ' served by regular school board elections.\" They argue that \"[t]he ballot box is an inadequate remedy in this case.\" Second Motion to Intervene, paragraph 24. The LRSD Board members are the elected representatives of the people. They are free to exercise all of the authority granted them under Arkansas law. The proposed intervenors do not accuse the Board of having acted illegally or beyond the scope of its authority, but only in a manner which the proposed intervenors consider to be \"contrary to interests of the District.\" There is no reason for this Court to determine who represents the interests of LRSD. The voters have already done ' that. If the proposed intervenors disagree with the legal actions of the LRSD Board of Directors, the ballot box provides not only an adequate remedy, but the only 'remedy. 7. In the absence of an alleged constitutional violation, the exercise of federal jurisdiction to limit or control a school board's legitimate exercise of its statutory authority also offends the right of the State of Arkansas to exercise governmental power through the creation of political subdivisions such as school districts. Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 US 161 (1907); See also, Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 US 105 (1967). 8. The proposed intervenors \"are not entitled to intervene based merely on the belief that their representatives on the School Board are not aggressively 4 defending the instant lawsuit.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407, 435 (W.D. La. 2004); citing United States v. Franklin Parish School Board, 47 F3d 755, 757 (5th Cir 1995). The proposed intervenors have not overcome the \"presumption that government institutions represent the interests of the public at large.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407 at 435; citing United States v. Louisiana, 90 F.R.D. 358, 363-364 (E. D. La. 1981). The Second Amended Motion to Intervene should be denied. WHEREFORE, LRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the Second Amended Motion to Intervene and grant it all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appelle~ ChriSt- ~~ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such fihng to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com Jess L.Askew[jaskew@williamsanderson.com] and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 6 - ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .  Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org July 31, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 LittleRock,AR 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III AUG -1 2007 OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 1~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott \u0026amp;sb\u0026amp;40P, M2wsx Qeperaj's Ptfiss STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna ., Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr; Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2007. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 31, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: \\ Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 J?:. ti Jq-c_, Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW .r AUG -1 2007 (fRCEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATIOU MOr.rmruNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions - of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year: 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 ' Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to this budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 41 34, Ex. 1. Case: 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain . essage-Id:\u0026lt;963593@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; w ee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/31/2007 3:54 PM CDT and filed on 7/31/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4135 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared .uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4135,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005709 Docket Text: ORDER, the Honorable Andree Roaf is Appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring . The ODM'S Proposed 2006-2007 Budget is accepted and effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/31/07 . (dac) 4:82 - cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: a 1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@rnbbwi.com 9 hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@rnbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . ~om Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office .Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610  ames M. Llewellyn , Jr hompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 'lliam P . Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902- 0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description : Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/31/2007] [FileNumber=963592-0] [3c22accd0728a391213cb920e00ab7b73lae8a76e918889d7234b31538af24e74d7955929890362 c0399ab5lfd9facf067fl3f95eaa90381233bl2a05c958c5b]J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AMENDED ORDER RECEIVED AUG - 2 2007 (ffCEQF rnDllM! IISHRBlllOII IOIITunma PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 \\ Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 4134, Ex. 1. Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain - ~~age-Id: \u0026lt;964503@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82 - cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this f i rst viewing.U . S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8 / 1 / 2007 3:33 PM CDT and filed on 8/1/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26 / 1998 Document Number : 4138 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http://ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ show_case_ doc?4138 , 26052 , ,MAGIC,, , 20057l9 Docket Text : AMENDED ORDER since the LRSD has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets re [4135) Order Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 8/1/07. (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com a hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net - hristopher J . Heller heller@fec . net, brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark TerrY'.Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John ,Clayburn Fend l ey, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building .323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr A Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. W ?ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 18 95 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. st Office Box 818 rt Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document (s) are as s ociated with this trans action : Document description : Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=8/l / 2007] [FileNumber=964502-0) [559cf8fcaldbd9b7a 9dc60la8clffd8f9596dfc3b78205332flf93ea5544b2418b9f6189ce49all 87122c48809a7b52ba74dff4edfe772albbf7e20cb05ad9le)] \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ir--- FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OISTRICT ARKANSAS  AUG 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Cowt's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Dep;ll'tment of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project  Management Tool for August 2007. \\ 1~1- General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 RECEIVED AUG 3 O 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ''\"\";\"1'\"' ,;' ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Marlc Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes. Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-151 0 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams,. Selig,. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201. J~~ C Smith I  Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:59 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8/30/2007 at 4:59 PM CDT and filed on 8/30/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski.Cty School, et al . Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department.of Education WARNING~ CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number:-4140 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing AD E's Project Management. Tool for August 2007 by Arkansas-Department of Education (available in paper format only). (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to:_ Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 8/3 1/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated. with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=8/30/2007] [FileNumber=986709-0] [638fbf95750fdb2bcc38d438al 759982e6393219filca65cfc6afbfedl 6b241432el 9 4ccf6c1097234311a6eab7650d2f8c784aed51ed8blcdlae3ed31fac7cel]] 8/31/2007 Page 2 of2    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_1764","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), motion to refer to mediator, and corrected certificates of service.","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-04/2007-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), motion to refer to mediator, and corrected certificates of service."],"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/1764"],"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":["56 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, motion to refer to mediator; Court of Appeals, corrected certificates of service; District Court, two letter-orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    N0.478 P.2 RECEIVED !AST/sl~,;QRT ISTRrcr ARKAN~s APR O g 21117 APR O g 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT co~s w. McCORMACK C EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARXANSAS-ep...:._  lERK WESTERN DMSION DEP ci.ER\"i( UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS1RICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Joshua Intcrve.nors appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth - Circuit from the Order of the Ea.stem Dis1rict of Arkansas, the Honorable William R.. Wilson, entered in this case on February 23, 2007. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 501-374-3758 ::~~ CERTIFICATE Of SER.VICE I certify that on April 9, 2007, I have filed the foregoing with the Cleric of the Court and lJC?Ved on all counsel of record.  Isl John W. Walker JVHN W WALKER PA N0 . 478 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Btoadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: A.pril 9, 2007 To: Margie Poweli Office of Desegregation Monitoring Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Appeal Sauler: John W. Walker P . 1 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ____ (including cover !1heet)] PAGE(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 mcsimilcmessago is attmncyprivileaedandcoofidential information intended ,_ only for the use of the individual or entity named above. J! the reader of this message is not !he intended m:ipicm. or the employee or agent responsi\"ble tO deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disui.butioll or copying of this communication is strictly prolaibitcd. If you have roccived this i:oJll!JllDUcation in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the oripial message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. ,. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOA SUPPLEMENT RECEIVED APR 1 2 2007 0FACE0F IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COUR'isEGREGATION M0NIT0RING EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS Please note any add itions or deletions to the style of the case from the style listed on the docket sheet (or anach an amended docket sheet with the final style of case) Caption: Little Rock Sch et al v. Pulaski Cty Sch et al Case No: 4:82cv00866 Date: 4/11/07 Appellant (s) Joshua lntervenors, et al Appellant's Attorney: John W Walker Appellee (s): Little Rock School District et al Appellee's Attorney: Christopher J Heller ( see docket sheet for additional attorneys) Court Reporter(s): Christa Newburg, Cheryl Nelson, Elaine Hinson, Genie Power- 600 W Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Name of Person who prepared appeal: Doris Collins Length of Trial (# of days) Fee Paid? Y/N: IFP Granted Pending IFP Motion Y/N Pending? Y/N 3 Days y Counsel Retained/Appointed/Pro Se Pending Post Local Interest Simultaneous Judgment Motions? Y/N Release? Y /N Y/N Reta ined I N y y CRIMINAL CASES/PRISONER PRO SE CASES ONLY Is defendant incarcerated? Reporting Date: Please list all other defendants in this case if there were multiple defendants: SPECIAL COMMENTS MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From: ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To : ared_ ecf@localhost .localdomain Message-Id : \u0026lt;88 4202@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; A Bcc : W subj ect :Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , e t al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Notificat ion of Appeal and NOA Supplement Content-Type : text/pl ai n***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed doc ume nts once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each doc ume nt during thi s first vi e wing . U. S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following tran saction wa s entered on 4/11/2007 11:00 AM CDT a nd filed on 4/11/2007 Case Na me : Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv- 866 http : //ecf . ared . uscourt s .gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl?26052 filer : WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4116 Copy t he URL address from the li ne below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document : _ http : //ecf . ared.uscourt s . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_ doc?4116 , 26052 ,, MAGIC ,,, 2005648 Doc ket Text : NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL a nd NOA SUPPLEMENT as to [4103] Memorandum \u0026amp; Opinion , [4110] Order [4115) Notice of Appeal ,. (NOTifICATION TO COUNSEL : REQUEST fOR TRANSCRIPTS SHOULD BE fILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT CLERK . FORM A \u0026amp; B SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT Of APPEALS CLERK ' S OFFICE ). (dac ) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically ma i l ed to : ar:-1ayton R. Blac kstoc k cblackstock@mbbwi . com W rhilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw. ne Christopher J . Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw.com , aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj . com , li nda.calloway@jlj . com John w. Wa lker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspri nger@gabrielmail.com, lorap722 97@aol . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeld nef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasa . gov , agcivil@arkansasag . gov , patsy . dooley@arka nsasag .gov 4 : 82 - cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , I nc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Ark ansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett - Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 - Little Rock , AR 72201 - 2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompso n \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902 - 0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document (s ) are associated wit h this transaction: Document description : Main Document Origi nal filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=4/ll/2007] [FileNumber=884201-0 ] [9bf0d7f5cbl4d4e632bf5b496092ldf4fe3ddb9d0cb4leb23a5d6a332769b304a33ffae2dl7fc49 823802cl87560abadfce35c4f3522d90847fd465cal686d09 ]] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org ( April 30, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 . Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 bl:!-cJ::!-11, Little Rock, AR 72201 rJ Ii; j 4; J V ~ Mr. Stephen W. Jones M4y ... CD Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 1 2007 425 West Capitol, Sl!.ite 34D4ftfllits, 0Fftct a  Little Rock, AR 72201 ~TIONn,f 'l{/TO!ifllt; Mr. M. Samuel Jones III , Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 4~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSP/i[t:'c. WESTERNDMSION ' fl~'  i111r - D l 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dtstsnts. '9Ft/~IFF  ~io11,,, 0 V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW WITOR/Nt; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following:  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 - Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon . P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARJ\u0026lt;ANSAS RICHARO SHEPPARD ARNOLO UNITED STA\"TES -COURTHOUSE 600 W. CA?ITOL, ROOM 423 UiitE ROCK, ARKANSAS ?Zl0'1'3J75   (501) 604-S140 F!K:Simil\u0026amp; {501} ~14\u0026amp; May 30, 2007 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National. Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCss_n.. et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear St.aff: CONFIDENT.u\\L Judge Andree Roaf, who has recently retired from the Arlc.a.nsas Court of Appeals, has tentatively agreed to serve as Director of the ODM. I will send a letter to this effect to the parties later this afternoon. Original to the Clerk of the Court oo: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel ofRewrd Cordislly, Isl Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. ( - ----- - ----- ---~ TO: FuNo. FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTJ:!,RN D1;sTRICI O.ft' ARKAN_SAS Teleph~ne 501-604-5140 Fa:x Number 501.-604-5149 DATE: There are ~ . pages, including this cove.- 1beet, being sent by this facsimile tx-ansniission .. MESSAGE SENT BY: /1/''f:-?vJ7 //-- Office of Judge Wm. :R. ~n, Jc U. S. District Court V 600 West Capitol, Room 4'-3 Little Rock, Arkans~ 72201 \" .,. Direct Phone Numbeis: Matt Morg~, Senior Law Clerk Valerie Former, Law Cler'..t (odd ease numbers) Mary Johnson~ Courtroom Deputy Chrirta..N~wburg, Court Reporter Eileen Hurison, Law Clerk (even ase numbers) 604-5141 604-5142 664-5144 604-5145 604-5148 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 May 30, 2007 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. - Little Rock 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Mr. Scott Richardson Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Counsel: I'm delighted to report that Judge Andree Roaf has tentatively agreed to serve as the Director of the ODM. As you know, she has recently retired after a distinguished career on the State bench. If you have any objections to this appointment, please notify me by 5 p.m., Tuesday, June 5, 2007. She and I have not discussed salary and expenses in detail, but we must get this resolved forthwith. I have been thinking about an hourly rate with a cap. My idea is that she would bill you each month. With the Little Rock School District out of the case, I do not believe it will be a full-time job, although it may be pretty time consuming for Judge Roaf while she gets her sea legs. Page 1 of 2 - I would welcome your suggestions regarding salary/fee. Judge Roaf has agreed that, if she comes on board, she will assess personnel and office needs for the ODM. Judge Roaf will not be available for several days because she is scheduled to travel to Italy on a project for the American Bar Association. I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray The Honorable Andree Roaf Other Counsel of Record Page 2 of 2 Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson, Jr. ...... Case : 4 : 82cv866 OfficeofDesegregationMonitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain 6 :sage-Id: \u0026lt;920860@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; w;;ject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Letter Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5 / 3 0/2007 2 : 56 PM CDT and filed on 5 / 30 / 2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http: //ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26 / 1~98 Document Number: 4121 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http: //ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ show_case_doc?412l,26052, , MAGIC, , ,2005669 Docket Text: Letter to attorneys of record from Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. regarding the appointment of Judge Andree Roaf as the Director of the ODM; any objections to the appointment must be made by 5:00 p.m . , Tuesday, June 5, 2007 . (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: - layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297~aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag . gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite .200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr A Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A . W'Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902- 0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Willi am P . Thompson A ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. - st Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-08 18 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l0 957 94525 [Date=5 / 30 / 2007] [FileNumber=92085 9-0] [74433650469daf8ed4cc088524e3cd8flc6611ce0aab8619956af96e9093dlaba090389bfd9eb3b b0d07fdec140949773790b5818c4ae 9dcec0e2dd82a4a9711]] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 May 31, 2007 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Stephen W. Jones JUN - 4 2007 John Walker, P.A. ~ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATI0?t-MOHIT0RING Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock ., Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer f, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECE\\\\JEO .lU\"; - 4 1001 off\\Ct Of Q\\\\\\l\\G \\ltSf.\\it\\tGt\\i\\O\\t ,AO\\t\\1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2007. :p~ Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following:  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS y\\lESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW JUN - 4 2007 PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING', DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA(State  Equalization) for the current school year.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2007 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. \\ Rec~,v~o JIJN. 1 4 zO,Bl UN1TED STATES COl JRT OF A.P~s,.. 1f1F.F,ICEOF FOR TEE EIGHTH CIR.ClJI~f/ON ~_ONffOij/NG  hu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE V. - CASE NO. 07- 1008 JOSHUA INTER \\ lENORS, ET AL. DEFENDA.1\"\\JTS/ APPELLA.J.\"\\JT ':~- lWOTION TO REFER TO MEDIA.TOR Undersigned counsel has reason to believe that this matter is likely to be resolved between the parties if Appellant is allovved additional time in which to submit the papers set forth in the briefing schedule. For this reason, undersigned counsel requests the Court to refer this n1atter t tJ the ( .0urt' 3 n1ediat0r fer that o.ffice~ s issistance and to allo~:.N the briefing :;chedule filing dates to be deferred for an additional 14 days. \\ vVI-IEREFORE, Appeiiant moves that this matter be referred for mediation under the court 's mediation program and that the briefing schedule be stayed for a further brief period of l 4 days. Appellant also respectfc1lly move that the Court eJ(cuse for good cause this belated filing. RECEIVED JUN O 8 2007 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WA..LKER, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, A...ct 72206 501 -374-3758 501 -374-4187 (Facsimile) Email:j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com C'..... , , \\ \" By: /s/ John W. Walker ) ~ '/L ,v\"\\.~, t .,/ RECEIVED UJ.\\i'ITED. STATES COlJRT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2007 FOR TIIE EIGhT.d CIR.COIT DES OFFICE OF EGREGATION MONITORING LITTLb ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE V. CASE NO. 07-1008 JOSHUA INTERVENORS, ET AL. DEFENDAJ.\"l1S/APPELLA.!.'H MOTION FOR LEA 'VE TO FILE OUT OF l'ThIE AND FILE BRIEF A.i.'ffi OTHER -S-(JPPORTING PA.PERS Appellants respectfully move the Court to allow them to fiJe this motion out of time and thereafter to grant them until July 6, 2007 in which to submit their brief and supportin.g papers. Undersigned counsel was ill during much of the month of April and the first week of May, 2007. During that tir1.1e the tr;1nscript ;vas net order. It ~3 coEnseI's understanding that the transcripts have been prepared but have not been filed because payment arrangements have not been made. Tliere is no p-rejudice to the Appellees by the requested delay. \\VHEREFORE, appellants respectfully move the Court for an Order which allows them until July 6, 2007 in .;s1hich to file their brief and supporting. RECEIVED  JUl'I O 8 2007 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ElGHTt-1 CIRCUIT Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. W ALF.ER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-3 74-4187 .(Facsimile) Email:j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com 1 2 By: Isl John W. Wa11\u0026lt;:er CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ! . John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been ser1ed on ail counsel of record by using the Eiv1'ECF filing system and via United States mail on this 6'h day of fu~2~ G Bv: isl John W. Walker :,;/c-4--,-j/_i{_ l l/ f l .f:l.LJ~'-r., :.., \\ 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS Mr. i\\-fichael E. Gans Clerk of the Court United States Coi.ui of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY D E LITTLE ROCK. ARI(AN\"SAS 71:ft CE!~ 'ED 'fELEPHONE (501) 374-3 758 w . FAX (501) 374-4187 JU  Elv(AIL: iohnwalkeram,@aol. com N 1 4 2007 June 8. 2007 IBS.m i~~r,r,, u Onf  i,..,w~,\"' OF COUNSEL    , . , .. v,11.un: ,,1,KOBERT McHENRY, P.A. 82 l0 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKAi\"ISAS 722!0 PHONE: (50 l) 37-1-3425  FA.-'\u0026lt; (50 1) 372-3428 EMAlL: mche111~'d(iiiswbell.net Thomas F. Eagleton U.S.Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 07-1866 Little Rock Sc.hool District, et al. v. Joshua 1ntervenors. et al. Deai.'. Mi'. Gans: Purs1iai.1t to our conversation with the clerk's office this morning, enclosed you will find an original and several copies of Corrected Certificates of Service regarding the two pleadings which were recently submitted for filing in the above matter. Tha.J.11\u0026lt;: you for your attention to this matter. JWW:lp cc: Mr. Chris Heller / Js'fi\\erelY.i i l l 1 1 \\, //'Vf ;f l ., I I J ---rr 11 r._~V!/1..J I.ti..,, !rfJohn. W. Walker !), UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEJ!ECEIVED FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JUN 1 4 2007 LITTLE:ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW.! OFFICE OF ~Iifflit'llrQ~G,EE ! V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA. INTERVENORS, ET AL . ; DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANT CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I; John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Refer to lv[ediator which was received by the Court of Appeals for filing on June 8, 2007, has been electronically mailed to: Christopher J. Heller, Counsel for the Little Rock School District heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III, Counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District siones@mvvsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones, Counsel for the North Little Rock School District sjones@ili .com, linda.calloway@ili.com Scott Paris Richardson, Counsel for the State ., Scott. richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel of record by US. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 12th day of June, 2007: '   Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: iohnwalkeratty@aol. com By: /s/ John W. Walker Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 ehpressman@RCN.com  ...... UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ EC E IVE D FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT JUN 1 - 2007 OFFICE OF ~.MDJRIOBING V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA INTER VENORS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANT CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,' John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Out of Time and File Brief and Other Supporting Papers which was received by the Court of Appeals for filing orr1une 8, 2007, has been electronically mailed to : c;hristopher J. Heller, Counsel for the Little Rock School District heller@fec.net. brendak(cv,finet, tmilter(Z4fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III, Counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District siones@mwsgw.com, aciverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones, Counsel for the North Little Rock School District '- sjones@jlj.com, linda.callowav@jli .com S,cott Paris Richardson, Counsel for the State Scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel of record by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 12th day of June, 2007: '  :tvlr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Edueational Fund, Inc. ~ New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 \\ .. . Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monjtor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 !..htle Rock, AR 72201 Respectfully submitted, JOHN\"W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkerattv@aol.com By: Isl John W. Walker .Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 ehpressman@RCN.com a Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4125 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 27, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Mr. Heller: RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I held a telephone conference today with all the parties except the LRSD. The primary purpose was discussing Judge Roaf's appointment as the new Director of ODM. She was present during the telephone conference. Mr. Walker expressed the opinion that LRSD is still \"in the case\" for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the ODM, including Judge Roaf s salary. I had not given this point much thought, but had concluded that LRSD is \"out\" since it has been declared unitary. Unless, of course, the Court of A' ppeals declares to the contra' ry. I would like your response to this. You will probably want to order a transcript of the telephone conference before responding so that you can see Mr. Walker's specific points. Please let me have your response by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Page 1 of 1 Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. Case : 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Cap itol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  ~~age-Id: \u0026lt;940580@ared . us courts . gov\u0026gt;_ ~ bject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-0086O-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/27/2007 12:37 PM CDT and filed on 6/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4125 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4125,26052, , MAGIC ,,, 2005681 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER from Judge Wm . R. Wilson , Jr . directing the Counsel for the Little Rock School District to respond to the telephone conference held today regarding Judge Andree Roaf's appointment as the new Director of ODM. Response is due by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. (smb) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : - layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com . hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr - hompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - lliam P. Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . st Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l0 95794525 [Date=6/27 /2007] [FileNumber=94057 9-0] [013e5ad693bl345c707a2749d424a37ba2202673d6c0lb2366fe7adb6ee4b62334a7e0ld3f2a652 37ad3146ldle365c886a9aa44f9fe96fcfc76ccc4e43f92f0]] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4127 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPP.A.RD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE pOO W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 27, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Scott Paris Richardson Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. - Little Rock 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Counsel: RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING After reflection, Judge Roaf is agreeable to the current compensation designated for the Director of ODM with the specific understanding that she will not be expected to be at the office on a full-time basis. As you will recall, Mr. Walker suggested the salary rather than the hourly rate that I had proposed. Mr. Steve Jones and Mr. Scott Richardson agreed with Mr. Walker's suggestion, and Mr. Sam Jones Page 1 of 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4127 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 . - stated that either method of compens~tion would be satisfactory with the Pulaski County Special School District. In due course I will enter and order confirming Judge Roaf s appointment, compensation, etc. She went \"on the payroll\" today. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray The Honorable Andree Roaf Page 2 of 2 Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. Case: 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain Message-Id: \u0026lt;940 65l@ared.uscourts .gov\u0026gt; A c: W bject :Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/27/2 007 1:04 PM CDT and filed on 6/ 27 / 2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http: // ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 /2 6/1 998 Document Number: 4127 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http: //ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin / show_case_doc?4 127,26052,,MAGIC , , , 2005686 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER re: Judge Roaf ' s compensation as director of the ODM . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 06 / 27 / 2007. (thd) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net A hristopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net ~- Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw,. com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott .richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - ort Smith, AR 72902 - 0818 Office o f Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 - rt Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=1095794525 [Date=6 / 27 / 2007] [FileNumber=940650-0) [505e10e2f4c60f8cec54df0f02f8f7bcb170033a756963063lfd37bd4a133b1274007f8584162ff 8fbe105317df4abe47452815715f0c9686cffbeb66e997626)) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner eEducati.;n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org June 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 2:;g.~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson; Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2007. Respectfully Submitted, d. \\ . ~ mi~2251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. Sam.uelJones,ill Mitchell, William.s, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 mith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year'. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1762","title":"Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration.","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":["2007-02/2007-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration."],"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/1762"],"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":["47 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary; District Court, letter seeking counsel's position; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of electronic filing, notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER DECLARING THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIT ARY I. Introduction1 In early 1998, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors2 (\"Joshua\") negotiated and voluntarily entered into the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( the \"Revised Plan\"),3 as a way of settling what was then over forty years of more or less continuous desegregation litigation.4 On April l 0, 1998, the Court approved the Revised Plan, 5 which required LRSD to substantially comply with hundreds of desegregation obligations in order to achieve unitary 11 once again note that United States Magistrate Judge Joe Thomas Ray has done a tremendous amount of work on this case throughout -- for which I am profoundly thankful. 2The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). Joshua's Petition to Intervene in this action was granted on May 24, 1984. (Doc. No. 565.) 3Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 4The complete history of this desegregation litigation is set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 997-1020 (E.D. Ark. 2002) (\"LRSD I\"). 5Doc. No. 3144. status and release from court supervision.6 Many of these obligations go well beyond what either the United States Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held is constitutionally required in order for a school district to be deemed unitary. Nevertheless, by voluntarily entering into the Revised Plan, LRSD became contractually bound to satisfy all of the specified desegregation obligations. 7 Since the meaning of some of the terms of the Revised Plan were questioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in its 2006 decision,8 I quote, as background for the following discussion, the Restatement of Contracts: ( l) Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.9 A. LRSD's March 15, 2001 Application for Unitary Status On March 15, 200 l, LRSD moved for unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with all of the obligations in the Revised Plan.10 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report11 which argued that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with most of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed a 6The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that the Revised Plan represents a settlement agreement which contractually obligates LRSD to fulfill the specified desegregation obligations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). In Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997), the Court characterized the settlement agreement as \"a particularization of federal [desegregation] law applicable to these parties.\" 1LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 103, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). 8LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 9RESTATEMENT(SECOND)OFCONTRACTS  201 (1981). 10Doc. No. 3410. 11Doc. No. 3447. -2- Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 12 On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed a Response13 opposing that Motion. I conducted a series of unitary status hearings during the second half of 2001 and the first half of 2002. During these hearings, over forty witnesses testified, and the parties introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. On September I 3, 2002, I entered a Memorandum Opinion ( the \"September 2002 Decision\") finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its obligations in the Revised Plan except those specified in 2.7.1. 14 Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to satisfy the following obligations: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievements. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 15 I found that, while LRSD had implemented numerous  2. 7 programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, the evidence established that it had done very little to assess the effectiveness of those programs, on a year-to-year basis, as required by  2. 7 .1 . The Findings of Fact in LRSD I discussed the substantial evidence which revealed that LRSD' stop administrators and Joshua both construed 2. 7 .1 's requirement that LRSD \"shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year\" to mean that LRSD must 12Doc. No. 3580. 13Doc. No. 3604. 14LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988. 15Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A -3- perform \"program assessments\" and \"program evaluations.\" 16 Witnesses for LRSD and Joshua testified that both parties understood the term \"assess,\" as used in 2.7.l, to be a term of art requiring LRSD to prepare annual assessments and evaluations of the 2. 7 programs. While 2. 7. l does not mention the word \"evaluation,\" the evidence established beyond peradventure that LRSD clearly understood that its obligation to assess the 2.7 programs required it to prepare not only program assessments but also program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. B. The 2002 Compliance Remedy In subpart A of the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I tracked the language the parties used in  2. 7 .1 and required LRSD to assess each of the programs implemented under 2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students during the entire 2002-03 school year and the - first semester of the 2003-04 school year. I did not spell out that LRSD was required to prepare evaluations of specific 2. 7 programs because the testimony of the parties during the 2002 unitary status hearing made it clear that they understood the term \"assess\" to include both assessments and evaluations of the  2. 7 programs. Therefore, to comply with subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD was expected to continue to prepare program assessments and to prepare program evaluations of the most promising  2. 7 programs that it planned to implement during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records documenting how it had gone about assessing the 2.7 programs. 16LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-77. (\"Not to put too fine a point on it\", but since there appears to be some confusion about the required \"evaluations\", this order will be quite redundant on this point). -4- Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file program evaluations on the fourteen  2. 7 programs listed on page 148 ofLRSD' s Final Compliance Report. This Final Compliance Report, 17 filed on March 15, 200 l, detailed everything that LRSD had done to meet its compliance obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. Importantly, this Final Compliance Report reflects precisely how LRSD construed its desegregation obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. On page 148, under the heading \"Section H Program Evaluation,\" LRSD cited \"Section 2.7.l\" as creating the obligation to prepare fourteen program evaluations of 2. 7 programs. Since 1998, Dr. Steven Ross has worked extensively with PRE to improve the program evaluation process. LRSD accepted his recommendation and hired Dr. John Nunnery, who was supposed to prepare most of the evaluations of the fourteen specifically identified  2. 7 programs. 18 In the March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report, LRSD unequivocally admits that it knew, understood, and construed the obligation in 2.7.l to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring it to prepare evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 19 In the Final Compliance Report, LRSD stated that, as of March 15, 200 I, PRE20 staff and Dr. Nunnery had prepared evaluations on all fourteen of the 2. 7 programs identified on page 148. During the 2002 unitary status hearings, however, LRSD administrators admitted that only six of the fourteen evaluations actually had been completed. These fourteen evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs were supposed to have been prepared during the 1999, 2000, and 2001 school years (at 17Doc. No. 3410. 18See LRSD's Final Compliance Report at page 148 (Doc. No. 3410). 19Consistent with LRSD's explicit acknowledgment of this obligation in subpart Hof the Final Compliance Report, Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other top LRSD administrators testified during the 2002 unitary status hearing that they understood 2.7. l's obligation to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring LRSD to perform annual evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 20PRE stands for Planning, Research, and Evaluation. -5- the rate of approximately four per year) using testing and p e,formance data generated during those three school years. Subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare the eight missing program evaluations from the three previous school years. Everyone understood that, in preparing these evaluations, LRSD would use student testing and performance data from the 1999 through 2001 school years to determine the effectiveness of those 2.7 programs during those school years. Thus, subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to catch up on the annual  2. 7 program evaluations, for the previous three years, which the Final Compliance Report erroneously stated LRSD had already prepared. So, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Because subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare - evaluations of 2. 7 programs to determine their effectiveness in school years before the 2002-03 school year, everyone understood that the eight page-148 program evaluations required in subpart C could not be used by LRSD to satisfy the program evaluation obligation in subpart A, which required it to prepare evaluations of the  2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first six months of the 2003-04 school year.21 On the record this admits ofno doubt. Finally, LRSD was given until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it was in substantial compliance with  2. 7. l, as outlined in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22 21This explains why, after it prepared the eight evaluations required by subpart C, LRSD proceeded to prepare two global evaluations of its Literacy and Math and Science curricula for the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. These two global evaluations were clearly intended to satisfy LRSD's obligation under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22LRSD I. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. -6- C. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the September 2002 Decision Joshua appealed the September 2002 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 2, 2004, the Court entered an opinion affirming the September 2002 Decision.23 Because LRSD did not cross-appeal, it gave up any right to complain about the obligations imposed on it in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. D. LRSD's March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report24 seeking unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed papers25 opposing LRSD's request for unitary status. On June 14 and 15, 2004, a unitary status hearing was held. During this hearing, it was revealed that, shortly after I entered the 2002 Compliance Remedy, numerous top LRSD administrators had resigned, including the Superintendent; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associated Superintendent in charge of Curriculum and Education; and most of the rest of the employees in the PRE Department. LRSD' s remaining administrators testified at the hearing that because of this mass exodus they were unsure about how LRSD should go about satisfying subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. This was not brought to my attention until the 2004 hearing. Inexplicably, LRSD decided it could satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy by preparing two \"global evaluations\" ofLRSD's Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. As previously mentioned, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy used the same language contained in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, and required LRSD to assess the  2. 7 23LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). 24Doc. No. 3837. 25Doc. Nos. 3856 and 3857. -7- programs.26 After the September 2002 Decision, LRSD's administrators decided the obligation to assess  2.7 programs could be satisfied by preparing only two \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's Literacy curriculum and Math and Science curriculum. This establishes clearly that LRSD construed the phrase \"assess 2. 7 programs, \"as used in 2. 7.1, to mean that it was required to prepare program evaluations -- not just program assessments. On June 30, 2004, I entered a Memorandum Opinion (the \"June 2004 Decision\"), holding that these two global evaluations fell far short of 2.7.1 's requirement that LRSD must annually assess specific  2. 7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students.27 The best way to understand the shortcomings of LRSD's \"global approach\" to complying with 2.7.1 is through a concrete example of what the plain language of 2. 7 .1 and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy actually obligated LRSD to do. During the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years, LRSD implemented numerous 2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. One such program, which was implemented in elementary schools throughout the district, was the Pre-K Literacy Program. During the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings, testimony established that the Pre-K Literacy Program was one ofLRSD's most promising 2.7 programs. IfLRSD had hired Dr. Ross or some other similarly qualified consultant to perform evaluations of the Pre-K Literacy program and three orfour other specific 2.7 programs, during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 26During the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD' s witnesses made it clear that they knew and understood the word \"assess,\" as it was used in  2.7.1, to mean that LRSD must prepare assessments and evaluations as part of its obligation to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs. This is also precisely how LRSD had construed its obligation under 2. 7 .1 in the years following its execution of the Revised Plan in 1998, as evidenced by page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2001. Thus, I felt sure LRSD understood that the obligation to assess the  2.7 programs meant that it must prepare both assessments and evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs. 21LRSD v. PCSSD, eta/., No. 4:82CV00866, 2004 WL 5187587 (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2004) (\"LRSD If'). -8- school year, I would have had no difficulty finding that it had substantially complied with the program evaluation obligation contained in  2. 7. l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Instead of evaluating specific  2.7 programs, however, LRSD's administrators tried to satisfy 2.7. l by hiring Dr. Ross and another outside consultant to perform \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's overall Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. These evaluations amounted to nothing more than a survey of LRSD's complete program curricula in the areas of literacy, math, and science. Neither evaluation attempted to address the effectiveness of any of the specific 2.7 programs implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. As a result, these global evaluations provided no usefal guidance on how any of the specific  2. 7 programs were working to improve African-American achievement. During the June 2004 evidentiary hearing, Dr. Ross, himself, (and the other experts who prepared the two global - evaluations) admitted that these \"step l\" global evaluations did not satisfy the plain language of 2.7.1 (which, as noted above, required LRSD to prepare \"step 2\" evaluations of specific  2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students). As was set forth in the June 2004 Decision, the obligations in 2.7. l go to the very heart of what Joshua contracted to receive from LRSD in agreeing to the Revised Plan: It is impossible to overstate the importance of 2.7.1 to LRSD's African-American students. Unless something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African-American, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentage of its educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, not because a federal court says that it must, but because it is the right thing to do.28 28LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *20 (emphasis in original). -9- Based on the evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing on June 14 and 15, 2004, I was at a loss to understand how LRSD could have concluded that the two \"global evaluations\" substantially complied with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I denied LRSD's request for unitary status.29 During the June 14 and 15, 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD administrators complained that, because subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy did not spell out precisely what they were supposed to do to satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, they were unsure of how to proceed. I was puzzled by this professed confusion so, to avoid any future confusion about what the language in  2.7. l required, the 2004 Compliance Remedy spelled out the specific obligations that LRSD must meet in order to satisfy the requirements of 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan.30 However, I did so with some reluctance and only because I was genuinely concerned that, unless I restated those obligations in very specific terms, LRSD might once again fail to substantially comply with 2.7.1: In the (2002) Compliance Remedy, I was reluctant to set forth too much detail about how LRSD should structure its program assessment process. Professional educators ought to be able to do a better job than I could in formulating and implementing this process; but LRSD is found wanting in its handling of its duties under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy.31 E. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the June 2004 Decision LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ironically, on appeal, LRSD argued, among other things, that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was too specific and imposed obligations that went beyond what it had agreed to do under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its opinion affirming the June 2004 Decision.32 29/d at **20-29. 30/d. at **32-35. 31/d. at *22. 32LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). -10- However, both the majority and dissent expressed concern that some aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy may have gone beyond the obligations LRSD agreed to undertake in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. F. LRSD's October 16, 2006 Application for Unitary Status On October 16, 2006, LRSD filed a Compliance Report33 detailing everything that it has done to satisfy the 2004 Compliance Remedy and  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD asserts that, because it has now substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it should be declared unitary and released from court supervision and monitoring. On November 16, 2006, Joshua filed Objections to LRSD's Compliance Report and Opposition to LRSD's Request for Unitary Status.34 On January 20, 21, and 27, 2007, I conducted another unitary status hearing. LRSD called fifteen witnesses who testified about LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised - Plan, as those obligations are contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Joshua called nineteen witnesses who testified that LRSD needed to do more still in order to comply with its obligations. The parties again introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. Because the Eighth Circuit's recently expressed concerns about whether the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed obligations on LRSD that went beyond those contained in  2. 7 .1, I believe it is important for me to address that issue before I reach the merits of LRSD' s substantial compliance. 33Doc. No. 4050. 34Doc. No. 4058. - ------ -11- II. LRSD's Obligations Under The 2004 Compliance Remedy And Why It Was Required By 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan A. LRSD Must Reestablish Its PRE Department As previously discussed, between mid-2002 and June of 2004, LRSD allowed its PRE Department to collapse.35 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who in June of 2003 was appointed Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum to replace Dr. Lesley, testified that: PRE was short of personnel . .. and ... he intended to propose to the Board that it set a high priority on hiring a team of well qualified and experienced professionals capable of reinvigorating PRE. 36 In section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to hire the well qualified and experienced team of professionals that according to Mr. Glasgow was necessary to reestablish an effective PRE Department. I required that this group of professionals include: (1) a director comparable to former director Dr. Lease, someone who hac:l a Ph.D. and experience in designing, preparing, and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations, and in formulating a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs 35Dr. Kathy Lease, the director of PRE, left LRSD in the fall of 2002. Three statisticians and several other support staff left PRE in 2002 and 2003. None of these employees had been replaced at the time I conducted the June 2004 unitary status hearing. At that time, PRE was being run by one statistician, who had no real experience in performing program assessments or preparing program evaluations. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's Associate Superintendent oflnstruction and Curriculum, who had considerable knowledge and experience with the program assessment and evaluation process, left LRSD in 2003. She was replaced, on an interim basis, by Dennis Glasgow, who had almost no experience with the program assessment and program evaluation process. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. In LRSD II, I found that the collapse of the PRE Department explained in large part why LRSD's remaining administrators, who had little knowledge about the program assessment and evaluation process, mistakenly determined that two global evaluations ofLRSD's overall program curriculum could somehow satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, which required LRSD to evaluate specific 2. 7 programs. For a complete discussion of how LRSD allowed the PRE Department to - fallapart,seeLRSDiat 1077-81 andLRSD//,2004 WL5187587,at**9-10, *21. 36LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. -12- designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; (2) experienced statisticians like those who had worked under Dr. Lease; and (3) other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate an effective PRE Department. As indicated above, Section 2.7.1 required LRSD to assess, on an annual basis, the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. And, as I have previously explained, LRSD and Joshua both interpreted the term assess in 2.7.1 to be a termofartthatrequired LRSD to perform annual program assessments and program evaluations of the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness.37 Finally, this is precisely how LRSD construed 2.7.1, as evidenced by page 148 of the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and in its decision to prepare two global evaluations to satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.38 37During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley's testimony made it very clear that LRSD and Joshua both knew the definitions of and distinctions between a \"program assessment\" and a \"program evaluation.\" Dr. Lesley defined a program assessment as something that is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as \"more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. In LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *2, I summarized the distinction Dr. Lesley made between a program assessment and a program evaluation as follows: [A] program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always involves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. 381n the Eighth Circuit's June 26, 2006 decision, neither the majority nor the dissent addressed the undisputed fact that LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted the word \"assess,\" as used in  2. 7 .1, to mean that LRSD must perform both informal program assessments and the far more rigorous program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of 2.7 programs. As a result, the panel erroneously construed  2.7.1 as requiring LRSD to perform program only assessments -- not evaluations -- of the 2.7 programs. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528, 536-37 (majority), 542 (dissent). In the same vein, the Eighth Circuit suggested that \"this litigation has been complicated by -13- Similarly, while nothing in the Revised Plan explicitly required LRSD to have a PRE Department, it appears that it would have been impossible for LRSD to discharge its program assessment and program evaluation obligations under 2. 7 .1 without one. By the time of the 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD's PRE Department was no longer functioning and had only one employee, a statistician. By ordering LRSD to reestablish its PRE Department with an experienced and qualified staff, I was requiring LRSD only to restore the status quo ante regarding PRE the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court\" in the use of the terms \"assessment,\" \"evaluation,\" \"program\" and \"key program.\" LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 531-536. I respectfully disagree. From the first unitary status hearings in 2002, LRSD, Joshua, and I have all understood exactly what the term \"assess\" means in 2. 7.1. We all know that this term, which is a term of art, required LRSD to perform both assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Similarly, we all understand what a 2. 7 program is and which of the 2. 7 programs are the key or most important programs. When I required LRSD to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs in subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD, Joshua, and I all understood this would require LRSD to prepare assessments of many of the 2.7 programs and evaluations of some of the most important 2.7 programs. This explains why LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, which mentioned nothing about program evaluations and required LRSD only to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs, to mean that it must prepare two global evaluations. During the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley back-tracked from her earlier testimony in the 2002 unitary status hearing and stated that she did not believe 2.7.1 and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to perform any evaluation of the  2.7 programs. However, she could provide no explanation for why, if she was correct, LRSD had expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform evaluations of the 2. 7 programs in order to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1 as documented in the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and the March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status. Finally, Dr. Ross offered compelling testimony explaining why, as a long time consultant to LRSD, he and top LRSD administrators had always construed 2.7.1 's obligations \"to assess the 2.7 programs\" as requiring LRSD also to prepare evaluations of those programs. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *27. As the finder of fact in the 2004 unitary status hearing, I had an opportunity to closely observe Dr. Lesley and to assess her credibility. In my 2004 Findings of Fact, I stated the following: I do not put much stock in Dr. Lesley's testimony at this last hearing. (Her testimony in the unitary status hearings in 2002 was quite helpful.) Her answers to pointed questions were often indirect and marked by semantics. I got the distinct impression that she wanted to avoid giving answers that would be harmful to LRSD's position. Since I found Dr. Lesley's testimony on this point was not to credible, there is no evidence in either the 2002 or 2004 unitary status hearing to support the notion that 2. 7 .1 required LRSD to perform only program assessments. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence which establishes that both LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted \"assess,\" as it was used in  2. 7 .1, to be a term of art that required LRSD to perform program assessments and program evaluations. -14- Department staffing and operations -- something that was essential ifLRSD ever expected to meet its obligations under  2.7. l. I do not believe that section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed a single new obligation on LRSD that was not part of what it originally agreed to do in order to discharge its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan.39 I hark back to  201 of the Restatement of Contracts quoted in the introduction. B. LRSD Must Create and \"Deeply Embed\" a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, required LRSD to use its PRE Department, in consultation with Dr. Ross, to devise a \"comprehensive program assessment process\" and then to \"deeply embed\" that process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program. I defined \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to mean and include both \"formal evaluations\" of key 2.7 programs and \"informal program assessments.',40 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD witnesses testified that, each school year, LRSD implemented numerous  2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Some of those programs were pilot projects that were only offered at one school to a relatively small number of students. Other  2. 7 programs had been used for several years in numerous schools and were regarded as key  2. 7 programs that appeared to offer the most promise in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The testimony during the 39lnLRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542, the dissent characterized my requiring LRSD to hire a new team for PRE as a \"significant abuse of discretion.\" Based on the entire record -- which reflects the clear, abiding understanding of the parties before the 2004 hearing -- I do not agree. 401n LRSD II, I explained that \"[t]he comprehensive program assessment process must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs ... [and] preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process.\" LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *32. Thus, in requiring LRSD to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy merely spelled out for LRSD what it knew and understood  2. 7 .1 to mean. -15- June 2004 unitary status hearing made it clear that LRSD and Joshua both had a good understanding what the key  2. 7 programs were. I do not believe that requiring LRSD to evaluate only key  2. 7 programs is a new obligation under 2.7. l, especially since LRSD had been performing annual evaluations on its most important or key  2. 7 programs since it entered the Revised Plan in 1998. The dissent in LRSD v. NLRSD, et al. 41 discussed at length the reasons why requiring LRSD to \"deeply embed\" its program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program imposed a new contractual obligation on LRSD that was not contained in  2. 7. I. of the Revised Plan. The dissent pointed out that: (I) I did not \"identify any objective standards by which [I intended] to measure whether LRSD had succeeded in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement\"; (2) the \"deeply embedded\" requirement was \"impossibly subjective\"; and (3) I created \"the unworkably subjective 'deeply embedded' standard . .. out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy.\"42 Upon mature reflection, I wholeheartedly agree with the dissent's criticism ofmy decision to require LRSD to \"deeply embed\" the program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to create and implement a program assessment process capable of allowing it to prepare annual program assessments and program evaluations of the  2.7 programs as a way of determining the effectiveness of those programs in imposing the academic achievement of African-American students. Nothing in either  2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy can fairly be construed to mean that LRSD must \"deeply embed\" the program assessment 41451 F.3d at 541-543. 42/d. at 542-43. -16- process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. 43 Additionally, as the dissent points out, trying to apply an entirely subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard is a bridge too far -like trying to reach the mirage in the desert. In 2.1 of the Revised Plan, LRSD agreed to act in \"good faith\": LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operations of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.44 In the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I found that, in the areas in which LRSD was held to be unitary, it had \"complied with its obligations under 2.1 of the Revised Plan and that, in the future, it could be trusted to follow the Covenants and the Constitution.\"45 I now realize that, in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I should have adopted the - \"good faith\" compliance standard imposed under 2.1, rather than crafting a \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard \"out of whole cloth.\"46 The language I should have used in section B, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" standard, is as follows: LRSD must act in good faith (as explicitly required by  2.1 of the Revised Plan) to implement the program assessment process required by  2.7.1 of the RevisedPlan.47 In the Findings ofFact, I will use this \"good faith\" compliance standard 43In hindsight, I probably imposed this new obligation on LRSD because I believe it is so important for LRSD to honor the commitment it made in  2. 7 and  2. 7 .1. Of course, my personal feelings are irrelevant with respect to the plain meaning of 2. 7 .1. 44Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 45LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. 46LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542. 47While I have acknowledged my error in imposing on LRSD the \"deeply embedded\" obligation, I hope LRSD realizes the need for making the program assessment process a permanent part of its curriculum -- not because a federal judge thought it was a good idea, but because it is the right thing to do to help improve the academic achievement. -17- to determine whether LRSD has substantially complied with section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard contained in the June 2004 Decision. C. LRSD Must Prepare Eight Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs Over Two Academic School Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) As I have previously explained, on March 15, 2002, a number of months before I began the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD filed a Final Compliance Report which documented everything it had done to satisfy all of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On page 148 of that document, LRSD stated that, over the last three years, it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen specifically identified 2.7 programs to satisfy part of its obligations under 2.7.1. However, during the subsequent unitary status hearing, testimony established that, by June 1, 2002, LRSD had prepared only six of the fourteen program evaluations. Once again, it is important to remember that LRSD' s 2002 Final Compliance Report set forth the things LRSD had done to substantially comply with its understanding of the obligations in the Revised Plan. Page 148 of that document makes it crystal clear that LRSD construed 2.7.l 's obligation to assess the 2. 7 programs as requiring it to prepare fourteen program evaluations, over three school years (1999 through 2001). To comply with its own interpretation of 2.7. l , LRSD should have prepared approximately four program evaluations during each of those three years.48 481n subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to prepare the eight missing evaluations of the specifically identified 2. 7 programs using testing and performance data generated during the three previous school years when LRSD should have prepared those evaluations. Contrary to the Eighth Circuit's characterization of subparts A and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, there was nothing \"bifurcated\" or inconsistent about those respective remedies, both of which were based on the identical interpretation ofLRSD's obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. Similarly, there is nothing in the record from the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings which supports the Eighth Circuit's statement that: \"Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations.\" Id. at 537. -18- In the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Ross testified that he believed a school district the size of LRSD should be expected to prepare four or five  2. 7 programs evaluations each year in order to comply with its 2.7.l obligation to assess the effectiveness of the 2.7 programs. This number of annual program evaluations coincided almost exactly with the average number of annual program evaluations LRSD had earlier determined that it was required to prepare, over the 1999 to 2001 school years, in order to comply with its obligations under 2. 7. l .49 Using LRSD's own construction of the number of program evaluations it should prepare each year to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1, I specified in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that LRSD must prepare program evaluations on four key 2. 7 programs during both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. Thus, section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not impose any obligations on LRSD that were not contained in 2. 7 .1, as LRSD had construed and attempted - to implement those obligations since the time it agreed to the Revised Plan in 1998. Rather, it only required LRSD to prepare the same number of annual evaluations of 2.7 programs that: (1) it believed it was required to prepare in order to satisfy its own understanding of its obligation under  2.7.1, as acknowledged on page 148 ofLRSD's 2002 Final Compliance Report; and (2) its own long-time consultant testified was reasonable for a school district the size ofLRSD. Finally, I suggested that LRSD use Dr. Ross to prepare as many of the eight evaluations as possible. As I pointed out in the 2004 Memorandum Opinion, a number of years ago, Joshua agreed, in writing, that Dr. Ross possessed the qualifications necessary to prepare program evaluations and to act as a consultant for LRSD in its efforts to comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. 50 Since that time, LRSD has regularly used the services of Dr. Ross, and he is thoroughly familiar with LRSD's compliance efforts under the Revised Plan. I suggested that LRSD continue to use 49See page 148 ofLRSD's March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report (Doc. No. 3410). 50LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *9. -19- Dr. Ross only because I was concerned that, if LRSD selected another consultant to prepare the program evaluations, Joshua would challenge the new consultant's qualifications, and I would be required to referee another contentious dispute. D. The General Organization and Content of the Eight Program Evaluations During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, the parties introduced into evidence Regulation IL-Rl , which the LRSD Board of Directors approved shortly after I filed the September 2002 Decision. Regulation IL-Rl established the criteria that LRSD developed and agreed to follow in preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.51 Section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy contains obligations that I took directly from Regulation IL-Rl. LRSD voluntarily adopted Regulation IL-Rl to govern the organization and content of the program evaluations it prepared to satisfy  2.7.l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. In section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I incorporated most of the requirements in Regulation IL-RI. 52 In doing so, there were no new obligations imposed on LRSD that went beyond what it had already agreed was required to do. E. Record Keeping Obligations As a way of relieving LRSD of the record keeping obligations in subpart B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside consultants who were selected to prepare the eight  2.7 program evaluations to discharge all of the record keeping obligations that were previously imposed on LRSD. Obviously, nothing in section E imposed any new contractual obligations on LRSD. 51LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *7. 52On December 16, 2004, LRSD replaced Regulation IL-RI with Regulation IL-R. As will be discussed later, Regulation IL-Risa significant improvement over Regulation IL-Rl. -20- F. Obligation to Keep ODM and Joshua Informed Section F required LRSD to provide the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and Joshua: (I) with the names of the eight  2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross selected for evaluation; and (2) a copy of the comprehensive program assessment process adopted by LRSD's Board of Directors. Numerous sections of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to keep ODM and Joshua informed of its progress in complying with its desegregation obligations. Section F merely continued that policy, without imposing any new obligations on LRSD. G. The Role of ODM Section H reiterated ODM's role in assisting LRSD to meet its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Eighth Circuit ordered the creation ofODM and charged it with the duty of monitoring and assisting the three Pulaski County school districts to meet their respective - desegregation obligations. There is nothing in section H that imposed any new obligations on LRSD. H. The Role of Joshua In section I, I restated that Joshua was expected \"to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations.\" There is nothing in section I that imposed any new obligations. I. Deadlines for Filing Program Evaluations Section J required LRSD to file the four program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October I, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year were required to be filed no later than October I, 2006. J. Deadline for Filing Compliance Report Section K gave LRSD until October 15, 2006, to file its Compliance Report \"documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy.\" -21- K. No New Obligations In this section, I made it clear that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was not intended to impose any new obligations on LRSD but only to state with greater specificity the obligations I thought LRSD understood it was required to meet in order to satisfy subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Because of the Eighth Circuit's concerns about the scope of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I believe this section deserves to be quoted in full: L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIl of the September 13 [2002] Decision.53 As I have previously acknowledged, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy added a significant new obligation, not found in 2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy, which required LRSD to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its - curriculum and instruction program. However, with that exception, I am satisfied that the remainder of the 2004 Compliance Remedy fairly met LRSD 's request that I specify in greater detail the obligations that LRSD and Joshua both knew and understood to be contained in 2. 7 .1 and subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. III. Findings Of Fact And Conclusions of Law A. Burden of Proof l. In my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the June 30, 2004 Order,54 I explained why LRSD had the burden of proving its substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 53LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *33 (emphasis added). 54LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *19. -22- 2. I incorporate and adopt my previous analysis of the burden of proof issue inLRSD II as my conclusion of law on that point for purposes of the current unitary status hearing. B. LRSD's Substantial Compliance with Each Section of the 2004 Compliance Remedy 1. Section A: Hire a Team of Professionals to Reinvigorate PRE 1. After I entered the June 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD acted in a timely manner to hire a highly qualified director of PRE, as well as three statisticians, two testing assistants, and a full time secretary. Dr. Sharon DeJarnette, the new director of PRE, obtained her masters degree from Columbia University and her Ph.D. from UCLA. The topic of her dissertation was the preparation and use of program assessments to gauge the progress of English language learners. Prior to being hired by LRSD, she had over five years of experience preparing program evaluations of comprehensive school improvement programs as the Research Director for the Galef Institute. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, I heard testimony from Dr. DeJarnette and three statisticians in PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Ms. Mareso Robinson, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb. All four of these employees were knowledgeable, competent, and well educated, with considerable training and experience in statistics. All four of these employees were also quite knowledgeable about preparing and using assessments and evaluations to determine the effectiveness of academic programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students. 3. Dr. DeJamette began working as the director of PRE in October of 2004. In December, mandatory downsizing of all of LRSD' s administrative departments caused her to lose her secretary. Additionally, one of her testing coordinators left for a position in the PCSSD. Because these positions remained vacant for several months, Dr. DeJamette complained that it was harder for PRE to perform its work and forced the remaining staff to work longer hours. These positions have been restored now and PRE is back to its original seven person staffing level. -23- 4. Dr. Ed Williams, a statistician who has the longest tenure in PRE, testified that, after one of the testing coordinators left in 2005, he temporarily assumed those duties, in addition to his duties as a statistician. In November 2005, Arthur Oles was hired to fill this test coordinator position. Mr. Oles left the position in September of 2006, and Dr. Williams again assumed those duties until the position was filled on October 26, 2006. According to Dr. Williams, throughout the time PRE was required to discharge obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it was adequately staffed. I fully credit Dr. Williams's testimony and find that LRSD adequately staffed PRE during the relevant compliance period. The temporary vacancies in PRE were simply the result of normal attrition or downsizing that routinely occurs in organizations the size of LRSD. It was never my intention to require LRSD to meet its obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy with \"mathematical precision.\" Rather, consistent with the language in the Revised Plan, I expected LRSD to substantially comply with its obligations. The evidence during the January 2007 unitary status hearings fully supports my finding that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations in section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 2. Section B: Act in Good Faith to Devise and Implement a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process l. Shortly after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD began work to satisfy its obligations under section B. Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Olivine Roberts,55 and Dr. Ross worked together to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. I find all three of these individuals are very knowledgeable in preparing and using program assessments and program evaluations. And all three are qualified to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD. 55LRSD's Director of Curriculum and Instruction. -24- I I I I I I I I I I 2. Together Drs. DeJamette, Roberts, and Ross devised a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD, which was set forth in Regulation IL-R.56 Importantly, this regulation, in conjunction with LRSD Policy IL,57 makes it clear that LRSD agrees to prepare all future program evaluations in accordance with the standards developed by the national Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. During the numerous unitary status hearings held since 2002, Dr. Ross and several other witnesses have testified that these are the highest and most rigorous standards for preparing a program evaluation. I find that Regulation IL~R, in conjunction with Policy IL, substantially complies with the obligation in section B that LRSD devise a comprehensive program assessment process. 3. Baker Kurrus and several other members of the LRSD Board testified that, on December 16, 2004, LRSD's Board unanimously approved Regulation IL-R. To date, LRSD's - Board has approved Program Evaluation Agendas annually requiring four programs to be evaluated during the 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 school years. The first eight of those evaluations were required by section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. LRSD's Board voluntarily elected to evaluate four 2. 7 programs during the 2006-07 school year. LRSD Board members testified that LRSD intends to continue this practice for the foreseeable future. 4. During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Bonnie Lesley58 testified that PRE had done a good job of preparing annual assessments of the 2.7 programs. According to Dr. Lesley, an \"assessment\" was much more informal and \"dynamic\" than a \"program evaluation.\" She also made it clear that 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to prepare both assessments and evaluations on the  2.7 programs. The evidence in the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings 56See Joshua's Exhibit 6. 51See Joshua's Exhibit 4. 58LRSD' s Associate Superintendent of Curriculum. -25- established that PRE has generally performed well in preparing the program assessments required by 2.7.1. 5. In section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at footnote 39, I explained that the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" required LRSD: (a) to prepare formal evaluations of some of the key  2. 7 programs; and (b) to prepare informal program assessments of other  2. 7 programs. The evidence during the 2004 unitary status hearing established that LRSD failed to satisfy its program evaluation obligations under  2. 7. l -- not its program assessment obligations. Thus, sections B and C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy primarily focused on the things LRSD needed to do to satisfy its program evaluation obligation under  2.7.1. This explains why Regulation IL-R primarily discussed the criteria to be followed in preparing formal program evaluations. However, it also specifically provided that LRSD was obligated to prepare - \"summative\" or formal evaluations; informal assessments; less rigorous formative evaluations; and fast or brief \"snapshots\" of programs. Regulation IL-R noted: \"As rigor and formality diminish along the range ofreview, fewer standards apply.\"59 6. On November 16, 2006, LRSD's Board approved a Resolution which states its intention: (a) to \"continue to assess LRSD programs, particularly those[ 2.7] programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students\"; and (b) \"to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. \"60 By approving Regulation IL-R and the November 16, 2006 Resolution, LRSD's Board has acted in good faith to implement the program assessment process required by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. 59See Joshua's Exhibit 6 at p. I. 60See LRSD's Exhibit 5. -26- 7. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. Ed Williams,61 and Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh62 all testified at length about how LRSD has acted in good faith to implement the comprehensive program assessment process. Dr. Roberts testified that, since the adoption of Regulation IL-R, PRE has made an annual recommendation to the Board that it adopt a program assessment agenda and the Board has always approved that agenda. Using those annual agendas, LRSD has prepared the program evaluations that I required in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as well as additional voluntary evaluations of other 2.7 programs -- including the Voyager Reading program and the Transition to Advanced Math program. LRSD has also evaluated several  2. 7 initiatives including Avid, an in-school support system for college bound African-American students, and another initiative designed to increase the number of African-American students enrolled in advanced placement courses. Finally, Dr. Roberts testified about how LRSD has performed annual program assessments -- which are more informal and dynamic than program evaluations -- of other  2. 7 programs. 8. Dr. Roberts testified that the program evaluations LRSD was required to prepare in order to satisfy sections Band C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy greatly helped LRSD to identify the  2. 7 programs that were actually working to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. LRSD Board member Baker Kurrus testified that, even though LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit, he believed the Compliance Remedy was very helpful and set forth a \"very positive approach\" for LRSD to follow in meeting its obligations under 2. 7 .1. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, the current chair of the Board, also testified that the 2004 Compliance Remedy contained the elements LRSD needed to satisfy in order to meet its obligations under  2. 7. l . As noted earlier, the Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed the 2004 Compliance Remedy, but 61A PRE statistician. 62LRSD's Deputy Superintendent. -27- it questioned the need for the prescribed remedy and criticized a number of its requirements as going beyond what LRSD agreed to do in 2.7.1. I am pleased that LRSD's top administrators and Board members recognized the soundness of the 2004 Compliance Remedy and why the specific requirements were necessary to address the shortcomings in LRSD's initial attempt to satisfy its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations were more generally described in the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 9. Dr. Roberts made it clear that the eight  2.7 program evaluations prepared by Drs. Ross and Catterall63 were beneficial to LRSD in determining the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. In addition, she testified that LRSD has agreed to implement all of the changes and modifications to those eight programs that were recommended by Drs. Ross and Catterall. IO. The evaluations of the Pre-K program, the Smart Thrive program, the Reading Recovery program, the Year Round Education program, and the A Plus program demonstrated that all five of those  2.7 programs are improving the academic achievement of African-American students. While the evaluations of the Read 180 program, the 2151 Century program, and the Compass Learning program demonstrated no statistical benefits in improving the academic achievement of African-American students, the evaluators believed that, after making changes in these three programs, they also should show a statistical benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, LRSD has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, all of the recommended changes and is continuing all eight of those programs during the current school year. Finally, LRSD has performed, or intends to perform, follow-up annual evaluations on these eight programs to determine their effectiveness after all of the recommended changes have been implemented. 63 An expert who, in addition to Dr. Ross, conducted program evaluations. -28- 11. Dr. Roberts testified' that LRSD is in the process of completing a \"Data Warehouse\" where all district, school, and student data will be maintained in a central data storage facility that will be accessible to authorized personnel, such as PRE employees. LRSD has elected to use Business Objects software to develop this data warehouse. Before the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD had used Business Objects software to manage its financial data for a number of years. In 2005, LRSD administrators decided to use this same software to create the Data Warehouse, which will eventually contain all ofLRSD's data -- including district, school, and student data. LRSD administrators chose to use Business Objects software, rather than competing software sold by TetraData. Dr. Roberts saw the competing presentations on the Business Objects software and the TetraData software, and she believes the Business Objects software can access and configure the data needed by PRE to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. Assuming the - Data Warehouse performs as expected, this will make it much easier for PRE to perform program assessments and gather the data needed to prepare the more rigorous and expensive program evaluations. 12. Dr. Roberts testified that, once the Data Warehouse is complete, PRE should be able to access by computer all of the information needed to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs. As explained by Dr. Roberts, all students who have participated in any of the  2. 7 programs are \"tagged\" in the Data Warehouse so that PRE can pull up a tagged student's name to see how many 2.7 programs he or she has participated in, as well as the standardized test scores and grades for the student both before and after exposure to  2. 7 programs. This will also allow PRE to track the tagged students over time to assess how they are performing after completing each specific 2. 7 program. This should allow PRE to gauge the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs on a more expedited basis. -29- 13. According to Dr. Roberts, LRSD has used the Data Warehouse to create overall Curriculum Maps that will provide the infrastructure upon which School Portfolios will be constructed at all elementary, middle, and high schools. Dr. Roberts believes these Curriculum Maps are necessary before LRSD can build School Portfolios in the Data Warehouse. Eventually, these School Portfolios will contain all of the relevant performance data for students in a particular school and can be used to determine how well a school has implemented a  2. 7 program, as well as how students are performing, on a school-by-school basis, in those  2.7 programs. LRSD intends to begin implementing School Portfolios at ten schools during the 2007-08 school year and complete the process over the following two school years. 14. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Kurrus all testified at length about why they believed LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process in - Regulation IL-R as a permanent part of its curriculum. I have already explained why I should not have used such a subjective standard to determine whether LRSD had met its compliance obligations. Nevertheless, after hearing everything that has been done to make the comprehensive program assessment process a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum, as explained by Drs. Roberts, Williams, and Mr. Kurrus, I believe it would be hard to find that it has not been \"deeply embedded.\" 15. Dr. Williams testified that, in July 2006, LRSD began \"live training\" with its employees on how to using and accessing data from the Data Warehouse. While there are still some data points that need to be added to the Data Warehouse, Dr. Williams believes it will meet PRE's needs in accessing the data required to prepare program assessments and evaluations. 16. Dr. DeJarnette64 and Jim Wohlleb65 were critical ofLRSD' s decision to use Business Objects software. Both testified that TetraData was superior software that was specifically designed 64Director of PRE. 65 A PRE statistician. -30- to configure data for use in preparing program assessments and program evaluations. They were critical of the amount of training they had received in using the Business Objects software and believed that the Data Warehouse contained too many errors and was still too incomplete to allow PRE to use it as a source for preparing assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Both testified that, only a few days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they tried to access the Data Warehouse to get the student data needed to prepare a hypothetical assessment of one of the 2.7 programs. They testified that, because so few of the students in the  2.7 programs have been tagged, they could get only one of the eight data points necessary to prepare the hypothetical assessment. Finally, they testified that they had invited a representative of ODM and Joshua to view the inadequacies of the Business Objects software and the Data Warehouse. Dr. DeJarnette also criticized LRSD' s delay in implementing the School Portfolios and in creating an unreliable Data Warehouse that she may not be able to use to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. 17. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh testified that LRSD decided to use Business Objects software because it can be used to access financial and budget data, as well as the student data needed by PRE. According to Dr. Hattabaugh, TetraData cannot be used to access financial and budget data. Additionally, Business Objects software allows LRSD to create a Data Warehouse on its own servers, which allows it to own and control the data.66 18. I fully credit Dr. Hattabaugh's explanation of why LRSD elected to use Business Objects software, rather than TetraData software, to create the Data Warehouse. I find that LRSD acted in good faith when selecting the Business Objects software, which Drs. Roberts, Williams, and 66TetraData requires school districts that use its software to store all of their data on its server in North Carolina. School districts are then charged an annual per student fee to access information from TetraData's server. -31 - - ------- Hattabaugh all believe will fully meet the needs of PRE in preparing program assessments and evaluations. 19. LRSD hired the Janis Group to create the Data Warehouse using the Business Objects software. Mr. Larry Naeyaert , the director of business intelligence for the Janis Group, was assigned the LRSD Data Warehouse project in 2005. For most of2005 and all of 2006, he worked essentially full-time in Little Rock installing the Business Objects software and creating the Data Warehouse. As a former employee of Business Objects, Mr. Naeyaert is thoroughly familiar with the operation of that software. He also is a specialist in setting up business intelligence systems and data bases. 20. Mr. Naeyaert testified in detail about how: (a) student testing, performance, demographics, scheduling, and observational data were entered into the Data Warehouse; (b) - security features have been installed to protect student data; ( c) data have been \"normalized\" to make it available in a common format, which can be matched to a particular student's name; (d) errors have been corrected in the testing and achievement data and a computer program developed to check each night for any input errors that may have occurred earlier in the day; (e) individual student \"data marts\" were created that include all of the data that PRE employees said they needed to prepare program assessments and evaluations; ( f) a student tagging system was developed to track all of the students who have been in any of the 2.7 programs; and (g) five full days of training were provided to all PRE employees.67 21. Mr. Naeyaert testified that LRSD's Data Warehouse is almost complete, although it will be necessary to update it on a continuing basis with new data. The only incomplete data, not yet in the system, are the past school year's achievement data, teacher certification data, and \"perception\" data. Mr. Naeyaert testified that, in July and October of 2006, he performed multiple 67Dr. DeJamette attended only a little over one day of that training. -32- live demonstrations using the Data Warehouse for PRE employees, and the Business Objects software was able to access the requested information from the Data Warehouse. 22. LRSD recalled Mr. Naeyaert, as a rebuttal witness, to controvert the testimony of Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb that, shortly before the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they were unable to access the Data Warehouse and obtain the data they needed for a hypothetical program assessment. Mr. Naeyaert demonstrated how he was able to access the Data Warehouse and obtain all of the data that Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb testified they were unable to access. 23. Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Wohlleb, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert all agreed that LRSD maintains \"data silos\" (individual servers) in numerous departments, which contain all of the information PRE needs to prepare program assessments and evaluations. To access these data silos, PRE sends a \"radar request\" to LRSD's information technology department. Data specialists - then go to the data silos and assemble the requested data. Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb testified it usually takes two days or less for the data specialists to provide PRE with all of the requested data. Thus, even if the Data Warehouse failed to provide PRE with the data it needed, it could still prepare program assessments and evaluations using radar requests to access the data from the decentralized data silos where it is also maintained. The software concerns about perceived problems with the Data Warehouse represent a difference of opinion and preference, but the choice of Business Objects in no way indicates that LRSD has failed to comply with its obligations. 24. Dr. DeJarnette testified that the Data Warehouse was necessary in order to deeply embed Regulation IL-R.68 She also believes that the creation of School Portfolios is required under Regulation IL-R. However, Regulation IL-R, which sets forth LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process, says nothing about LRSD's agreeing to create a \"Data Warehouse,\" nor does 68Joshua's Exhibit 6. -33- it mention \"School Portfolios.\"69 In short, there is nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy or Regulation IL-R which obligates LRSD to create a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios or to accomplish those two objectives before the comprehensive program assessment process could be deemed to be \"deeply embedded.\" Clearly, LRSD administrators voluntarily decided to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, in part, to make it easier for PRE to have access to the data it needed to perform assessments and evaluations. While this decision may be a good one, it was not required by 2.7. l, the 2004 Compliance Remedy, nor Regulation IL-R. 25. According to Dr. DeJarnette, on December 1, 2006, LRSD Superintendent Roy Brooks suspended her, and a short time later she was notified that she had been discharged. On January 8, 2007, LRSD' s Board heard Dr. DeJ arnette' s appeal and reinstated her as director of PRE, effective January 10, 2007. According to Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Brooks discharged her because, - contrary to his orders, she informed LRSD Board members in early November 2006 of perceived problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. Dr. Brooks and Dr. Hattabaugh testified that Dr. DeJarnette was discharged because she had become openly defiant to her superiors and did not go through the proper chain-of-command when she communicated directly with LRSD's Board members. Both denied that she was discharged because she believed LRSD had not met its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 26. The facts surrounding Dr. DeJarnette's discharge and reinstatement are irrelevant to whether LRSD has substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Nevertheless, because Dr. DeJamette 's discharge and reinstatement may be raised on appeal, I will review briefly the relevant facts, which are essentially undisputed: 69The only time that phrase is even mentioned is on page 2, under one of the headings on a checklist that reads \"Formative Evaluation Process (School Portfolios).\" -34- (a) By December of 2004, a few months after she was hired, Dr. DeJamette had a dispute with her direct supervisor, Dr. Roberts, about a district-wide downsizing that caused her to believe she might lose one of her test administrators and her secretary. Following this dispute, Dr. DeJamette began complaining to Dr. Brooks about how Dr. Roberts was impeding the work of PRE. Dr. DeJarnette asked Dr. Brooks to allow her to report directly to him, but he refused. (b) During 2005 and 2006, Dr. DeJamette began to meet with Joy Springer, Joshua's primary monitor, without LRSD's attorney present. She also began sharing with Ms. Springer draft documents ofLRSD' s compliance efforts, even though LRSD' s attorney had explicitly directed her not to do this. (c) In August of 2006, PRE sent LRSD's attorney the final draft of the final quarterly update, which was dated September 1, 2006. 70 In this update, Dr. DeJarnette raised what she thought were a number of problems with LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. All of the \"compliance problems\" raised by Dr. DeJamette involve obligations that go beyond what was required under  2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (d) LRSD's attorney deleted almost all of Dr. DeJarnette's remarks in section D of the September 1, 2006 update, which criticized LRSD's efforts to comply primarily with the \"deeply embedded\" obligation in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy.71 This upset Dr. DeJarnette, who believed that LRSD's attorney was trying to keep the Board in the dark about potential problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. 10See Joshua's Exhibit 24. 11See LRSD's Exhibit 2H. -35- (e) Sometime in October of 2006, one or more Board members found out about LRSD' s attorney deleting a portion of PRE's draft of the September I, 2006 quarterly update and asked Dr. Roberts to have Dr. DeJarnette advise the Board of what happened. Dr. DeJarnette sent each Board member a letter dated November 3, 2006, along with a document captioned \"PRE Compliance History 2004-2006.\"72 (f) On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and, a short time later, fired her. On January 9, 2006, the Board heard Dr. DeJarnette's appeal and voted 4-3 to reverse Dr. Brooks's decision and to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette. 27. I fully credit Dr. Roberts's testimony detailing the long list of things LRSD did to implement and embed the comprehensive program assessment process contained in Regulation IL-R. I credit the testimony of Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert on the current status of the - Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, and the suitability of Business Objects software as a platform for accessing the information in the Data Warehouse. I find that much of Dr. DeJarnette's and Mr. Wohlleb's criticism of the Data Warehouse, School Portfolios, and the Business Objects software lacks objectivity. 28. I find that LRSD' s administrators have substantially complied with their obligations m section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by implementing a comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. I further fmd that, in implementing the comprehensive program assessment process, LRSD has acted in good faith. 29. LRSD has gone the extra mile to ensure that its program assessment process is and will continue to be a permanent part of its curriculum. I would be hard pressed not to conclude that LRSD has now \"deeply embedded\" that process as a permanent part of its curriculum, although this standard is now abandoned. 72See Joshua's Exhibit 31. -36- - 3. Section C: Prepare Four Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs During Each of the Next Two Academic Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) 1. To comply with section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired Dr. Ross and Dr. James S. Catterall. Dr. Ross prepared evaluations of six key 2.7 programs: (1) Reading Recovery;73 (2) Compass Learning;74 (3) Smart/Thrive;75 (4) 2l51 Century Community Learning Centers;76 (5) Read 180;77 and (6) Pre-K Literacy.78 Dr. Catterall, another highly qualified consultant, prepared evaluations on two key  2. 7 programs: ( 1) Year Round Education; 79 and (2) A+ Education. 80 2. For the 2004-05 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations ofReading Recovery, Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, and Year Round Education. LRSD timely filed these four evaluations with the Court on February 6, 2006.81 3. For the 2005-06 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations of 2151 Century Community Learning Centers, A+ Education, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. The first three evaluations were filed on November 17, 2006, and the last evaluation was filed on December 15, 73LRSD Exhibit IA. 74LRSD Exhibit lB. 75LRSD Exhibit IC. 76LRSD Exhibit IE. 77LRSD Exhibit lG. 78LRSD Exhibit 1 H. 79LRSD Exhibit ID. 80LRSD Exhibit IF. 81See Doc. No. 3985. -37- 2006. All four program evaluations were filed within the time limit specified in section J of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as extended by my Order dated August 1, 2006.82 4. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in identifying the eight key 2.7 programs that were to be evaluated. Consistent with section F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD provided timely written notice to the ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight key programs selected for evaluation. ODM and Joshua agreed to the eight key  2. 7 programs that were eventually selected for evaluation. 5. In his evidentiary deposition, 83 Dr. Ross testified that the six evaluations he prepared met all of the requirements contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. He also testified that all six of these evaluations were \"good evaluations,\" in that they accurately answered the research questions and reached statistically valid conclusions which demonstrated four of the programs84 - were working to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, and two of the programs85 did not appear to be working. However, Dr. Ross testified that, after LRSD implemented recommended changes, these two programs should show a statistically significant benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Dr. Ross recommended that LRSD continue to offer all six of these 2.7 programs. Since Dr. Ross's recommendation, LRSD has implemented the recommended changes in those two programs and plans to perform a follow-up evaluation to determine if, after the changes, the programs are now working. After reading all eight of these step 2 evaluations, I find that they comply, in all respects, with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 82Doc. No. 4035. 83Court's Exhibit A. 84Reading Recovery, Smartffhrive, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. 85Compass Learning and 21st Century Learning Centers. -38- 6. Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare these six evaluations of 2.7 programs. While Dr. Ross identified several discrete problems with some of the data, he did not assert that these problems affected the validity or utility of the evaluations. He also made it clear that \"School Portfolios\" were not necessary in order to access the data required to prepare accurate and reliable program evaluations. 7. In his deposition, 86 Dr. Catterall testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare evaluations of the Year Round Education program and the A+ Education program. He stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts. Dr. Catterall also indicated that the evaluations he prepared of these two  2. 7 programs complied with all of the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Finally, Dr. Catterall testified that School Portfolios were not needed in order to prepare program - evaluations. 8. In her evidentiary deposition,87 Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, an outside consultant with expertise in using TetraData to construct Data Warehouses and School Portfolios for school districts, also confirmed that Data Warehouses and School Portfolios were not necessary in order to prepare a program evaluation. Dr. Bernhardt believed TetraData software was easier to use than Business Objects software, and TetraData software was specifically developed to create Data Warehouses for school districts, unlike Business Objects software. Finally, Dr. Bernhardt acknowledged that she owns stock options in TetraData. 9. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, Joshua offered little testimony challenging whether these eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs satisfied the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette testified that one of the high school 86Court's Exhibit B. 87Court's Exhibit C. -39- principals, who had students participating in the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program, administered 120 end-of-course algebra exams but failed to have 40% of the exams graded. Dr. DeJarnette believed this may have affected the accuracy of Dr. Ross's evaluation of that program. She also testified that Dr. Ross did not receive all of the data from all of the schools participating in the Read 180 program because some of the servers containing that test score data were dismantled before that data could be given to Dr. Ross. She believed this loss of data may have limited the use of the Read 180 evaluation. In criticizing the accuracy of a small part of the data used in two of the program evaluations, Dr. DeJarnette makes too much of a small glitch. Her testimony falls well short of establishing any substantial problems with the data used in those evaluations sufficient to create a question concerning whether LRSD complied with the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. - 10. In Joshua's November 15, 2006 Objections to LRSD' s Compliance Report, 88 the only challenge it makes to any of the eight program evaluations is in paragraph 5, which contains the following cryptic statement: \"[T]he evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program contain insufficient descriptions of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the Court's Order.\"89 To the extent that Joshua was serious about challenging sufficiency of how these two programs were described, they failed to present any evidence to support this argument during the January 2007 unitary status hearing. Accordingly, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations under section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 88Doc. No. 4058. 89Jd. -40- 4. Section D: Content and Organization of the Eight Evaluations of Key  2.7 Programs 1. Each of the eight evaluations was designed to answer the following research questions: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" And each of these evaluations is organized and written in a way that makes the information readily understandable to a lay person such as I. 2. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall both testified that PRE provided them with all of the support and assistance they needed to prepare the eight evaluations. Dr. DeJamette made it clear in the quarterly updates and in her testimony in the January 2007 unitary status hearing that she and the PRE department supervised the preparation of the eight evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide them with the data and other assistance they needed. Dr. Williams also testified that PRE fulfilled its duties in overseeing the preparation of these eight evaluations and working closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide the support and assistance they requested. 3. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. Section E: Record Keeping Obligation 1. After reviewing the eight step 2 evaluations, I find that Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall performed all of the record keeping obligations required in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any arguments or testimony directed at challenging the obligations imposed under this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. -41- 6. Section F: Notice Obligations l. As I have previously stated, PRE timely provided ODM and Joshua with written notice of the eight key 2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross identified for program evaluations. PRE also provided ODM and Joshua with a fmal draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented for approval to the LRSD Board. LRSD's Board approved the comprehensive program assessment process set forth in Regulation IL-R on December 16, 2004, well before the December 31, 2004 deadline. Finally, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any evidence challenging LRSD's compliance with any of the obligations in this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 7. Section G: Quarterly Updates l. LRSD timely filed the eight quarterly updates required by this section of the remedy. LRSD also provided ODM and Joshua with copies of these quarterly updates when each update was filed. 2. The only contested aspect ofLRSD's preparation of the quarterly updates concerns Joshua's assertion that LRSD's counsel improperly deleted information from section B of the final draft of the September 1, 2006 update that Dr. DeJarnette believed should have been included. As previously explained, in section B of the fmal draft of the September 1, 2006 update, Dr. DeJarnette raised compliance concerns involving: ( a) the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios; (b) errors and inaccuracies in some of the data contained in the Data Warehouse; and (c) the delay in completing both of those projects, which still had work that remained to be done, as of September 1, 2006. 90 Dr. DeJarnette believed the completion of both the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios were a 90See Joshua's Exhibit 24. -42- necessary and essential part of\"deeply embedding\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. She testified that, by editing out her criticism ofLRSD' s compliance efforts in section B of the September 1, 2006 quarterly update, LRSD's attorney was preventing LRSD's Board and the Court from receiving crucial information. 3. As I have previously explained, nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to install a Data Warehouse or to create School Portfolios. Similarly, Regulation IL-R does not mention the Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. Finally, Dr. Ross and Dr. Barnhardt both testified that a school district could embed a comprehensive program assessment process, as a permanent part of its curriculum, without creating a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. 4. The information LRSD's attorney deleted from Dr. DeJarnette's final draft of the September I, 2006 Quarterly Update has no bearing on the question of whether LRSD has - substantially complied with the obligations contained in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 8. Section H: The ODM I. During the 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua called Gene Jones, one of the ODM monitors, to offer testimony regarding LRSD' s alleged noncompliance. While Mr. Jones conceded that the term \"deeply embedded\" has never been defined, and that he was not sure what that term meant, he nevertheless, stated that he did not believe that LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. Be that as it may, \"deeply embedded\" is no longer required. 2. Mr. Jones also testified that, at Dr. DeJarnette's request, he was in PRE's office several days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing to observe alleged failure of the Data Warehouse (to provide seven of the eight points of data she needed to prepare her -43- I I I I I I I I I I I hypothetical program). Mr. Jones did not indicate that he had taken an independent look at section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to determine whether it required LRSD to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios. (It does not.) 9. Section I: Joshua's Monitoring Obligations l. The 2004 Compliance Remedy reads: I want to be very clear on this point- if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make \"mid-course corrections.\"91 2. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its decision affinning the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.92 The Court agreed that \"Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy.\"93 However, the Court went on to say: Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD' s efforts to comply with the 2002 order.94 3. Two days after the Eighth Circuit issued its June 26, 2006 decision Joshua filed an affidavit by Ms. Joy Springer. 4. Ms. Springer is a long-time paralegal for Joshua's counsel. She has considerable experience and has developed considerable expertise in the monitoring process. 92LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 93/d. at 539. -44-  5. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Ms. Springer testified, in a six-page affidavit dated June 28, 2006,95 that she had brought to the attention ofLRSD's Board her concerns about LRSD' s compliance with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Mr. Kurrus and several other LRSD Board members testified that this was their first notice that Joshua had any concerns about LRSD's compliance efforts. This was less than 120 days before the deadline for LRSD to file its Final Compliance Report and twenty-one months into LRSD's compliance efforts. On August 17, 2006, Ms. Springer wrote a letter to LRSD' s attorney96 detailing additional concerns that she had about LRSD's compliance efforts. 6. Most of the alleged compliance problems noted by Ms. Springer in her affidavit arose during the 2005 school year. The affidavit's list of problems include: inadequate professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations; a delay in the use of questionnaires - as part of the program assessment process; delays in the completion of the Data Warehouse; Drs. Brooks and Roberts \"de-emphasiz[ing] the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy,\" by seldom, if ever, attending \"PRE meetings\" or \"evaluation team meetings,\" and reducing or failing to fill positions in PRE; and LRSD's alleged failure to meet its obligation of\"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction program. 7. I would be hard pressed to find that Joshua's objections were timely filed in view of the Eighth Circuit language, quoted above, and in view of the language in the 2004 Compliance Remedy.97 Be that as it may, most compliance issues raised in the affidavit deal with matters that are clearly not required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy (\"deeply embedding\" is no longer required). My previous findings make it clear that I reject Ms. Springer's view of the alleged 95Joshua's Exhibit 18. 96Joshua's Exhibit 19. 91See LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *34. -45-  compliance problems which are covered by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I do not credit them in determining whether LRSD is in compliance. 10. Section J: Deadline for LRSD to File Program Evaluations I. As previously explained, LRSD filed the eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs within the times specified in section K, as extended by my later orders, and has substantially complied with its obligations under section J. 11. Section K: Deadline for LRSD to File Final Compliance Report I. LRSD filed its Final Compliance Report98 on October 16, 2006. Joshua filed objections99 on November 15, 2006. 2. Thus, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under section K. C. Miscellaneous: The Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow (\"QGTB\") Report I. On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department alleging, among other things, that certain LRSD senior administrators had created a hostile work environment by directing her to withhold information from the LRSD Board, ODM, and Joshua, and by advising her that, if she did not withhold this information, she would be discharged. 2. On November 6, 2006, LRSD retained the law firm of QGTB to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding Dr. DeJamette's grievance and her allegations that she was ordered to withhold certain information concerning LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On November 9, 2006, LRSD's Board approved hiring QGTB and directed QGTB to continue its investigation and prepare a written report. On November 21 , 2006, 98Doc. No. 4050. 99Doc. No. 4058. -46- QGTB presented LRSD's Board with a report entitled \"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors ofLRSD\" (the \"QGTB Report\"). 3. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, LRSD introduced the QGTB Report100 into evidence for the limited purpose of establishing LRSD's good faith in responding to Dr. DeJamette's grievance alleging a hostile work environment. 4. As I have previously explained, I find Dr. DeJamette's discharge and later reinstatement as Director of PRE to be a personnel issue that has nothing to do with whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. I further find that none of the facts contained in the QGTB Report are admissible in this case to prove the truth of any of the matters asserted in that document. D. 1. Impact of September 2006 School Board Elections From the time LRSD entered the Revised Plan in 1998 until the September 2006 school board elections, Caucasians have held the majority of seats on LRSD' s Board. This changed after the September elections, and LRSD' s Board is now composed of four African-Americans and three Caucasians. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, the three Caucasian Board members, Mr. Kurrus, Mr. Larry Berkley, and Ms. Melanie Fox, all testified that LRSD had deeply embedded the comprehensive program assessment process and substantially complied with all of the other obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 3. The African-American Board members are Chairperson Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Mr. Robert Daughtery, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and Ms. Diane Curry. They testified that they either did not believe, or did not have enough information to know if, LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. They also 100LRSD Exhibit 6. -47- expressed concerns about whether LRSD had substantially complied with its other obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Some of the African-American Board members also expressed reservations about whether it was in LRSD's best interest to be declared unitary because LRSD could lose millions of dollars of state funding that it now receives under the settlement agreement with the State of Arkansas. 4. Because the \"deeply embedded\" language has been struck as too subjective, the opinions of the Board members on the question of whether LRSD has \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process is not relevant. I do not find the concerns expressed by some Board members regarding the effect of LRSD's substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy on other obligations to be at issue now. It is understandable that Board members would be concerned over a potential loss of state funding, but that is not, and cannot be, an appropriate consideration in determining whether the District is unitary. I do not fault the new board members for their doubts. It seems to me that these doubts reflect a heathy skepticism, rather than negative attitudes. This is to be expected of new members while they are getting their sea legs. 5. All seven Board members agreed that improving the academic achievement of African-American students is of great importance, and that the District will need to continue to implement, assess, and evaluate 2. 7 programs for the foreseeable future. They support Regulation IL-Rand believe that it must be made a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum. They believe PRE plays a crucial role in overseeing the implementation, assessment, and evaluation of 2. 7 programs. By finding common ground on these four important priorities, I am optimistic that the Board will continue to ensure that the comprehensive program assessment process remains a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum for as long as it takes to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. -48- IV. Conclusion Nine years after executing the March 15, 1998 Revised Plan, LRSD finally has achieved unitary status by substantially complying with all of the obligations contained in that document. This means that LRSD is no longer under any supervision and monitoring obligations from me, ODM, or Joshua. LRSD's Board can now operate the district as it sees fit; answerable to no one except LRSD's students and patrons and the voters who elected them to office. While the road has been long and at times frustrating -- for LRSD and for me -- I want to express my heartfelt best wishes as LRSD begins to operate, as our Founders intended, under control of the citizens of the City of Little Rock. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that LRSD be and hereby is declared completely unitary in all aspects of its operations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM, and Joshua based upon its having substantially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy. DATED this 23d day of February, 2007. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -49- 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTlE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 March 24, 1007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, eta/, 4:82-CV-00866 Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Dear Mr. Walker: What is opposing counsel's position? Please advise. P.S. Please refer to Local Rul 6.2(b). Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Reco:rd Cordially, ts/ wm. R.Wilson,Jr, PAGE 02/02 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Scott Richardson ODM Mark Burnette .., . .) ~ l '/ . .;;, _;;.. Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 688-8807 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are -,_,pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 PAGE 01/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCtOF DEr!:~~U\\i\"i':.,.. :.;r:\"l'!'Off!NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Additional Time in which to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4105). Joshua is given to and including 12:00 noon, Thursday, April 5, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. This should give the intervenors ample time to weigh the relevant considerations. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIME-Version:1 . 0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a essage-Id:\u0026lt;872025@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W ee : Subject :Activity in Case 4:82- cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once wi thout charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/26/2007 11 : 11 AM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer ~ WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4107 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_doc?4107 , 26052 ,, MAGIC ,,, 2005624 Docket Text : ORDER granting ( 4105] Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal ; Joshua is given to a nd including 12 : 00 noon , Thursday , April 5 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 3/26/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: A:layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com - hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbml aw . net , nmo l er@kbmlaw.net Christopher J. He l ler heller@fec . net , brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com, linda .calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol . com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardsori@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag .gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag . gov 4:82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : . Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 . Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Atto rney General ' s Office Catlett- Pr i en Tower Building 323 Cente r Street Sui te 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 - 2610 James M. Llewell yn , Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe ll y n , P . A. Post Office Box 818 cort Smith, AR 72902-08 18 Office of Desegregation Moni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 ~ ttle Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following ~ocument(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007) [FileNumber=872024-0) [317a0cbedac4ald0bf5d26ac32314670103d8elca6e57249a36ac7a8b50b0ld7284fcl2f00fbbfe llc162 4b02853a0572ef935adbbc364371afbcf496f237239)) \\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  '\"INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS Based on the matters set forth in Joshua lntervenors' Motion for Reconsideration for Extension of Time Up to and Including 30 Days to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4109), Joshua's time is again extended to 12:00 noon, Monday, April 9, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. Mr. Walker and Mr. Pressman have had extensive experience in this type oflitigation and in,!his particular case. While the Order of February 23, 2007 1 is longer than the usual order entered by this Court, it is not, I believe, all that complicated for lawyers who have been involved in the litigation for such a len~h of time -- and the filing of a notice of appeal is a simple matter. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'Doc. No. 4103. MIME-Version:1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ ecf@localhost . localdomain Message-Id : \u0026lt;872438@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Alec: .,ubject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Reconsiderati on Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions . ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , down l oad a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3 / 26 / 2007 3 : 03 PM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4110 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the docume nt : http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/ show_ case_ doc?4l10 , 26052,,MAGIC,,, 2005632 Docket Text : ORDER granting [4109) Motion for Reconsideration ; Joshua ' s time is again extended to 12 : 00 noon , Monday , April 9 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge Wi lliam R. Wilson Jr . on 3 / 26/07 . (mkf) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ~ layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Wphili p E. Kap l an pkaplan @kbml a w. net , nmoler@kbmlaw .net Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samue l Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj. com, linda . calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, j springer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Bu rnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cl ayburn Fendley , Jr c l ayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com ~ Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agc ivi l@arkansasag.gov , patsy . dooley@arkan sasag .gov 4 : 82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means to :Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 ~imothy Ge rard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Offi ce Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 - Little Rock, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Llewe l lyn, Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe l l yn , P . A. Post Office Box 818 Fo r t Smith , AR 72902 -08 18 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ittle Rock , AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007] [FileNumber=872437-0] [b9a0174044707lc635647c060ac8605869149660906b84412eddll8e7761841722b72d3ccd8fc78 46lef08d8ac06f5ae4e4c3825b0b0189celdecaee8a00bede]] MIME-Version : 1 . 0 R~ From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov ,;;CE/ll~D To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain Ve;, - ~~age-Id:\u0026lt;872743@ared.uscourts .gov\u0026gt; /.f. Subject :Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School,~~ ~.J!JO(}iulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction OF~  Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS** JJESEOR~J\"-B;, the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , downloact~~JN4ttON/ftf..,~ach document during this first viewing.U.S . District Court '~ Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/27/2007 8 : 10 AM CDT and filed on 3/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4112 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http : / / ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_ doc?4ll2,26052,,MAGIC,, , 2005637 Docket Text : NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re : [4109] MOTION for Reconsideration . CORRECTION : The original document was submitted in error (illegible document format); the correct document was added to docket entry [4109] , based on the attached correspondence. (thd) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : A:1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com W hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net Christophe r J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samue l J ones , III (Terminated) sj o nes@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. J ones sjones@jlj . com, kat e . jones@jlj . com, linda . calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cla y burn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@c omcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Sc o t t Par is Richardson scott . richards o~\" @arkansasag . gov , agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dool ey@arkansasag.gov 4: 8 2-cv -8 66 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educationa l Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Ti mot hy Gerard Gauger Ark a nsa s At torney Genera l ' s Of fi ce Ca tlett -P rien Tower Bui lding 323 Center St reet Suite 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Ll ewel l yn, J r Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewel l yn , P.A. Post Cffi~e Box 818 f o r t Smitb , AR 7 2902-08 18 Of fi~~ 0E De s e g r ega tion Mo ni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ttle Rock, AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=1095794525 [Date=3/27/2007] [FileNumber=872742-0] [a2ff16c6503bf6f37ce6d846e18b46a2a71bb785564ba03f3defe925a6eebd7a57f7854b71d37dc 853a64aaf31c7af693c73a93le5del77b6a9a0780acf18605]]     Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; 03/26/2007 05:55 PM To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc \u0026lt;cblackstock@mbbwi.com\u0026gt;, \"Philip Kaplan\" \u0026lt;pkaplan@kbmlaw.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@mwsgw.com\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@jlj.com\u0026gt;, bee Subject Little Rock School Distirct v. Pulaski County Special School District.et al. At Mr. Walker's request, I am resending the attached motion per your request. Looks like we are having problem with our Adobe. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Joy Springer ., ' f:hif For John W. Walker Motion for Reconsideration.pdf ---------- ----- --------- ----~---------    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_1232","title":"Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D.","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":["2007-01-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D."],"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/1232"],"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":["66 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  \n\nDeposition taken at John W. Walker Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.4:82-CV-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT DATE: January 10, 2007 TIME: 5:59 p.m. PLACE: The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 APPEARANCES RECEIVE JAN 19 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONllORI G On Behalf of the Plaintiff: Christopher Heller, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark On Behalf of the Defendants: 400 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker, Attorney The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, Legal Assistant, The John W. Walker Law Firm Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box i4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS. I N D E X EXAMINATION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT By Mr. Walker. By Mr. Heller. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting ORIGINAL P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 PAGE . 3 . 3 .3-38 38-67 . 71 I I 1 2 - 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 ORIGINAL STIPULATIONS The deposition of Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, produced, sworn and examined at the John W. Walker Law Firm, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206-1220, commencing at 5:59 p.m., on January 10, 2007 in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G THEREUPON, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiffs, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Can you hear me fairly well, doctor? Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box #4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL A. Yes, I can hear you\nthank you. Q. All right\nthis is John Walker. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. No, I haven't. Q. All right. First of all if any question that I or Mr. Heller ask you is unclear or you do not understand it, would you be kind enough to let us know that you do not. A. I do. 4 Q. And ah, I'll try not to talk too fast or interrupt you but I would like for you to be able to give me a full answer and I'll try not to interrupt you and Mr. Heller and I hopefully will not talk at the same time. If there's some reason that you need to interrupt the deposition just feel free to just say it on the record and then we'll stop for a while. I don't expect this deposition to be lengthy at least from my part but Mr. Heller has a right to ask you questions as well. I'm prepared to begin--is there any prelimi nary statement you want to make Chris? HELLER: No. Q. Dr. Bernard--- SPRINGER: Bernhardt. Q. Bernhardt, I called you Bernard\nI'm sorry. Dr. Bernhardt when did you first meet Dr. Karen DeJarnette? A. Oh, wow. I'm trying to place the timing\nit was before she was working at Little Rock School District so it was ah, she Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail: gl oria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . c om 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\Glt~AL was also working with-- I was working .as controller with the Gala foundation as well so it put it in ah- - oh , like either late 1999 I think . Q. All right . Are you familiar with her qualifications? A. Very much so . Q. I see. How would you describe her qualifications to 5 perform the tasks of professional evaluations and assessments? A. Ah, from my knowledge of Karen's work ah , I would say she is probably the strongest professional program evaluator that I know that's very much research based, she is extremely strong in the profession and ah, I have never known her to cut corners or do something less than full, full on\nI don't know how to describe it any other way. She has a lot of personal and professional integrity and I've always admired her work. Q. All right. What is your highest degree, doctor? A. PhD. Q. From what institution? A. University of Oregon. Q. In what discipline? A. Educational psychology research and measurement so that's basically statistics like to psychology in education . Q. All right. Are you currently on the faculty of any university? A. Yes, I'm a professor at a California State University Chico also I'm on leave to direct the education for the teacher Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORlGll~AL 6 initiative that I've been directing since 1991. Q. I see. With all due respect I have to ask you this since the court will not get to hear you directly. Would you tell me whether you have received acclaim for work as a person who engages in providing evaluations and assessments of school programs? A. Have I received consulting fees? Q. No, ma'am\nhave you received acclaim? A. A claim? Q. Yes, ma'am\nhonors and awards and things like\ndistinctions? A. Ah, yes\nyes, I have. Q. I see. And are you published? A. Yes. Q. Have you published a book or is it journal articles? A. Ah, both. I have published eleven books\nI have two more in press at the moment. Q. I see. A. And t hen several journal a r ticles also. Q. I see. WALKER: We already have, I think we have access t o your vita and we intend Mr. Heller, to make that an exhibit at trial unless there's some objection. HELLER: WALKER: In the fourth quarterly report? Yes, it is. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 HELLER: Submitted to the court. WALKER: All right. Q. Now what was your work with the Little Rock School District and when did you begin it to your recollection? A. Ah, to my recollection ah, the work began in early 2005 and that started out with conversations with Dr. DeJarnette about how we were going to work together to ah, embed assessments throughout the district. So it started out with conversation, written proposal and then I believe my first visit with that proposal would have been ah, the spring of 2005. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with her staff? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of Dr. Ed Williams? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever have any one-on-one meetings with Dr. Williams? A. One-on-one, no. Q. Were you ever in a position to make an assessment of Dr. Williams' qualifications? A. Ah, yes--- Q. When did--- A. ah, Dr. Williams was apart of the team that came to, a four person team that came to our data analysis summer institute in Chico, California and ah, they were among fifty participants that worked with me and my staff for that, for a week, the last Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL 8 weekend in July 2005 and then I've ah, seen some of his work when I visited PRE. Q. What did you understand his responsibility to be? A. I understood Dr. Williams' responsibility to be a statistician ah, somebody that helped PRE gather data, supports from them evaluations, assessment in the schools and probably a staff member that did anything that was needed to support the data needs of schools\nthat's typically what a staff member in a program evaluation and research job would do I would say in a district. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with the staff on more than several occasions? A. Every time I was in Little Rock I met with the staff ah, so I know April 2006, the August / September 2005 then of course it was basically the PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette in Chico at our institute the last of July in 2005. Q. Did you discern at that time any conflict among the staff members? A. Absolutely not. Q. All right. Now with respect to your task did you have occasion to read Judge Wilson's compliance remedy? A. I d i d quite a while ago. Q. You did. In that compliance remedy he makes reference to the concept -of deeply embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. Do you recall that? That's at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fa csimile e-mail : glo ria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\~lAL 9 Part B, Page 6-3 of the draft quarterly report update as of September 1, 2006--you may not have that before you but ah, that's the section which is entitled devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process\ndo you recall having read that? A. Yes, and more than anything discussing how a district will go about doing that with Dr. DeJarnette. Q. All right. Could you tell me what is meant by first of all a comprehensive assessment process? A. Collect--- HELLER: John--- WALKER: Yes, Chris. Did you say something Chris? HELLER: Ah, ah, go ahead. Q. What is meant by a comprehensive assessment process? A. Well, to me a comprehensive assessment process for a district would mean that we're looking at the data that would tell us about the system ah, about its effectiveness, efficiency of operating, and would tell the district what's working, what's not working within the system, and how to close achievement gaps ah, how to measure to know if there are gaps or if elements of the system are not working, the way it actually gets implemented could be very different in any particular district but basically it means to me looking at every little nook and cranny to understand efficiency and Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box i4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac s i mile e - mail : gl oria.cobb@cobbcour t r eporting. com 2 3 4 5 6 7 \" 8 9 II 10 II 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 effectiveness and then to do something about it. Q. Could you explain what is meant by--well, first of all are you familiar with the term deeply embedding a process? A. Well, to me that means making it a part of the way you do business and making it a part of the daily work. Q. Is that sometimes referred to as the culture of the situation? A. It could be the culture, it could mean sustaining or truly implementing. Q. Are you familiar with any literature regarding that subject? A. Yes. Q. Is this a term that is in your opinion, one that is not capable of being easily understood? A. I think it's easy to understand on a surface level to actually do the implementation is really hard. Q. All right. On the surface level you've just given me a description of what is involved? A. Uh-huh. Q. And in terms of implementing it would you explain what some of the difficulties are in embedding the process deeply? A. Ah, the hardest thing is really cheap. You mentioned something earlier, culture ah, the hardest thing with the embedding new practices in a system, an organization, any organization is getting people to work differently because Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\NAL 11 culture is really about--work culture is about how we do work and in order to get people in this case using data on an ongoing basis in a way that maybe they haven't done it before there has to be new structures put in place for how we work, how we look at data, when we look at data, and probably the hardest piece and the piece that makes it happen is strong leadership and in a district it would be from the top all the way down ah, principals has to be a part of this vision, everybody has to have the same vision first of all of what it would look like kind of like if we're really doing this and then how we're going to carry it out and then that piece has to be monitored and measured as well as everything else to make sure that we are working differently and doing ah, really embedding work differently. Q. All right. So a monitoring component is essential or if the process is to be is to work and become deeply embedded? A. Absolutely. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether simple promulgation of a regulation announcing that you are going to do a certain thing is sufficient to constitute being a program evaluation p r ocess being deeply embedded into the curriculum of a school d i strict? A. Ah, just announcing that things are going to happen is not enough. Q. Does the announcement itself have value? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -ma i l : glor ia . cobb@c obbc ou rtreporting .com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 A. The announcement has value\none probably wouldn't. Continuous announcements would in addition to training and ah, clarification of what we're talking about in terms of describing a vision. Q. I see. A. And for example? Q. Yes. A. And providing visual or structure to do the work. Q. I see. Is the importance of the process governed to an extent or determined at least to an extent by the relationship in the organizational chart of the PRE department to the top administration of the district? A. Okay, could you repeat that again? Q. Yes. What is the relationship between having the PRE department relate to the highest echelon of the district and the concept of the process being embedded into the curriculum? A. Okay, if for instance if a department like program evaluation research was trying to implement to embed assessment throughout the district I would say there's no way on earth that that assessment could ever be embedded without the support from the highest positional in a district. Q. All right. Are you familiar with the Little Rock School District? A. Q. Yes. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the members Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the current superintendent of School, Dr. Roy Brooks, of the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, not to my recollection. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh? A. Substantive, no. Q. I see. Have 3/0U had any substantive meeting with Dr. Olivine Roberts with respect to embedding the evaluation and assessment process into the curriculum of the district? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me how many such conversations you have had with her? A. Ah, I would think probably two occasions I'm thinking, you know, when I'm in Little Rock I'm usual ly there for a week so I know that I had conversations with her in April 2006 when I was there and t hen in August / September 2005 when I was there. Whether i t was one, two, or three conversations I don't know\nshe a l so a t tended some of the training that I did with the principals and her staff as well\nyeah. Q. I see. Well, were you familiar with her qualifications in general? A. Ah, very generally I did work with her ah, on a leadership Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGlr,.JAL conference when she was in Orlando. Q. And when she was in Orlando did she have a senior level administrative position? 14 A. I'm not sure what Orlando would consider senior level and I wasn't, I know that her position was ah, I think she's the director of Professional Development in Orlando but I don't know if it was for one area or if it was for the whole district. Q. Is that what she told you? A. That's just my recollection at this point. Q. I see. A. Yeah, she had to ah, she contacted her office and made the arrangements. Q. I understand. Were you aware that her primary qualifications were in the field of mathematics? A. No. HELLER: Object to that question\nmisstates states the premise. WALKER: Would you mind stating for the record Chris what's wrong with that? HELLER: Assumes the fact that's not in evidence and not true. WALKER: Did she not indicate that her degrees were basically in mathematics and her experience mathematics? BERNHARDT: Are you asking me? Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glo r i a.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WALKER: I was asking Chris. HELLER: Are you asking Dr. Bernhardt? WALKER: No, Chris Heller. HELLER: No, no, she didn't. WALKER: I see\nall right. 15 Q. Now did you ever interact with her and Dr. Karen DeJarnette and the PRE team together on a substantive basis at any time while in Little Rock? A. I--yes, mostly in a training scenario. Q. I see. Was that on more than one occasion? A. Yes. Q. All right. What did you understand her role in that training to be? A. Ah, my understanding was that she also ah, she and Dr. DeJarnette were responsible for me being there and that Dr. Roberts' position is the--was/is supervisor of Dr. DeJarnette and one of the sessions--well, okay I'll just stop there. Q. All right. What happened during one of the sessions that you were about to report? A. Ah, well one of the sessions was the training with principals but another session ah, Dr. Roberts was in and Dr. DeJarnette and also the PRE staff in addition to some other administrators and principals did an assessment on a continuous improvement continuums of the district. And so there was substantive conversation about how the district gathers data, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 ORIG\\\\lAL uses data now , have about a vision it's something that we took a great deal with, with a lot of districts around the country. Q. Is that the occasion during which you discussed the need for having a comprehensive data retention source? A. I don't--we certainly did discuss that at that point and time but I don't think that was the first time it was discussed. Q. I see. Did you make recommendations to LRSD regarding embedding a comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum? A. Yes, I did . Q. Did that involve or include development of a data warehouse? A. Absolutely\na way to pull out the data and make it accessible throughout the district, yes. Q. Did you have that discussion with Dr. Roberts as well as Dr. DeJarnette? A. I believe so. Q. Now what did you feel was needed that Little Rock did not already have? A. Ah, Little Rock like a lot of districts around the country it's very, very, very hard to pull the data together. Ah, there are data sources, there are data elements that are in nooks and crannies around the district and what they don't have it one way to pull it all together and be able to cross all Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that information to get much better information. Also, they don't have tools for a quick analysis and they didn't have a way for teachers or administrators, principals ah, district administrators, staff members to all pull the same data, all pull from the same data source any time they needed it or wanted it. 17 Q. How did you happen to arrive at these conclusions? Was it based on what you were told or did you otherwise learn that? A. Ah, it was part--it was in part what I was told and it was also in part from ah, PRE trying to put together data like ah, the institute that I mentioned that was at Cal-State Chico the last week in July in 2005 that the team attended ah, that's all about pulling that data together and understanding different report~, different analysis and I know from observing that the team had a very, very difficult time pulling that data t ogether, getting it reformatted, cleaning it and ah, trying to pull it into one source. Q. Now did you make a recommendation as to how they may go about pul l ing it into one source? A. Yes. Q. What was that recommendation? A. Oh, I recommended that they would get data warehouses and different warehousing companies, I also showed them the one that I use which is ah, it's called Easy Data Analyzer by Tetradata Corporation and ah, that warehouse would do just Cobb Court Reporting P . 0. Box #4, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II 24 25   everything that we wanted it to do to ah, for embedding assessments across the district. Q. Was Dr. Olivine Roberts privy to that recommendation? A. Yes, she was. Q. Did she voice any objection to it? A. Not in my presence. Q. I see. Now did anyone, Dr. Williams or anyone voice objection to it? 18 A. Not that I know of. When I saw them viewing the product they were ah, the PRE staff I should say ah, when I saw them viewing the product they were pretty much blown away with what they could do if they had such a tool for helping them with the data. Q. I see. I have heard and there's a writing and there are comments that ah, you had a conflict of interest in that you recommended that enterprise and the conflict was because you were a member of the board that developed and marketed Tetradata. Would you react to that, please? A. Yeah, I'll react to that. Let me just tell you this: Since 1991 all I had been doing was working with school and school districts on data analysis and this kind of work. And actually befor e that I was also doing it but not as intensively as I started in August of 1991. And at that point in time one of the, the major issue that came up in every single situation was I think that the schools and districts were willing to use Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I II II I n n    5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 the data it's just they didn't have the tools to do that. So what I did in 1991 was go beat on the doors of data warehousing companies all around the country and I have billet in California so that's most of them are in Silicon Valley and at that point in time there weren't very many companies out there and they all had business solutions and I tried to talk with them about adapting their product so that it could work for schools and ah, every data warehousing company that I spoke with, with the exception of one ah, pretty much slammed the door in my face and laughed at me saying there's no future-there's no money in schools. And I said there's a future in schools, this is our future, this is what's going to, you know, get you your next engineers to keep your company going. Well, no existing data warehous.ing company was interested in working with us with the exception of Rio and basically they just said let's just give you and application and get out of my way and ah, so we used their product on a demo basis or a pilot basis I should say and we gave them all kinds of information back, we set up pilot schools all over the place, I was so excited that we were finally getting tools that would help us all do what takes months, months, and months for us to do by hand that we could do it very, very quickly. We gave them recommendations and they were like yeah, okay, just get out of my way and I, I was very, very discouraged. In late 1991 the CEO of Tetradata, Mark Bertoski called me and said we are a brand new company Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa csimi l e e - mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtrepor ting. c om 3 5 8 l 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 there's only three owners and we're trying to build a data warehouse to do everything that's in your data analysis book. And I almost hung up on the guy because I didn't know how to take the call and, and I spoke with him about what they were trying to do and I said to him the minute your product can do six things I will come to South Carolina where they're located at my expense and consult with you for a couple of days\nand I still didn't know if it was for real and that's basically how the arrangement started. I went back for two days to work with them on what I would want in a data warehouse and I stayed an entire week because it was so exciting because they were able t o do things that I've never, I've never, I never before that point and time was able to do electronically and quickly and easily. So I became their main advisor and they did want to pay me but I refused to take payment because I wanted ah, I wanted to be able to tell districts that this is the product, the only one out on the market that will do all of these things that we talk about in comprehensive data analysis work. I'm currently the chair of their advisory committee and ah, I basically I use their product and ah, mostly the advice, I don't know I advise them when they have a question or they're moving in development ah, I don't know how that's a conflict of interest for the district because I'm not an employee of the district. There are other companies that have asked me to work with them and they are not committed to the kind of development Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORl GI l~AL 21 work that this kind of analysis would require and therefore I'm not working with them. advise. So Tetradata is the only company that I Q. Are you a stock owner of Tetradata? A. Ah, I have some stock options--no, I currently am not. Q. All right. A. At one point they talked about it. Q. All right. Are you on their board of directors? A. No. I'm just on their advisory committee. Q. All right. Now do you perceive a conflict of interest in recommending that a program that you have setup be utilized for the purpose of program evaluation? A. I do not see that as a conflict of interest because it's ah, I know that this program does what we want to have happen in the embedding of assessment and ah, so it would be a likely recommendation. Q. All right. A. I'm not going to recommend something that doesn't do what we're talki ng about doing. Q. All right. Are you familiar with Business Solutions? A. Is it a company? Q. Ah, I think that you mentioned it earlier\nit may have been called Crystal Objects or Business Solutions, Business Objects? A. Ah, I am familiar with Crystal--- Q. Crystal Reports--- cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac simile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting.com 3 4 5 6 7 ll 8 9 ll 10 ll 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Reports. Q. yes. 22 A. Ah, when I was speaking about business solutions earlier I was talking about the generic term. Q. All right. What is your experience with Crystal Objects? A. My experience in other states, I didn't experience it in Little Rock but my experience in other states is that schools and districts ah, how do I say it nicely, swear at it ah, because it's very, very cumbersome, hard to use, and you can't cross the variables that you want to cross it's very, very hard, hard to use, there's a steep learning curve and ah, it's very time consuming, it takes a long, long time to do a few analysis so nobody like, I haven't seen schools or districts really do the comprehensive analysis that we'd like to see done with the footwork. Q. Did you learn that there was opposition to using Tetradata in the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, just recently. I didn't, I mean opposition, yeah. I do know that one of the times that I was, at one time when I was there probably the April time we talked about Tetradata and show them Tetradata, the next time I'm there I heard from Dr. Roberts oh, they were going to get Crystal Reports. So I just figured it was through the analysis and they're figuring out what was going to work for them and that's not unusual but I didn't hear that there was a big opposition. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I see. Did Dr. Roberts discuss with you the reasons for using business objects or crystal objects? A. Crystal Reports? Q. Crystal Reports, yeah. A. Yes, we just had a brief conversation about that. Q. What did she explain as the reason? A. Ah, I didn't--when she was talking to me about it in conjunction wi th purchasing another product that I think was going to do assessment for them so I understood it to be more o f a financial situation than anything and I also know what happens typically in districts is when they buy something like Crystal Reports which is really kind of like a software program that ultimately or either two years down the road they're going to re-buy\nthey will dump or drop that and buy the more robust engineered warehouse. So it didn't, I just thought that's whe re t hey were at that time. Q. I see. So they did not ask your opinion regarding the u t ility or r elative utility of us i ng Tetradata as over against what is it? A. Crystal Reports. Q. Crystal Reports? A. No. Q. I see. Did you include in your recommendation to Little Rock for embedding the comprehensive assessment process, the development of school portfolios? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, yes\nwell yes, uh-huh. Q. Would you explain what that recommendation really was about? 24 A. Yeah ah, whether or not a good school portfolio that would be in quote or not what this means to me is that for every school and across the whole district there would be data collected on at least four categories of data and ah, a comprehensive analysis that would describe who they have as students, how that population has changed any over time so they get to predict who, how the population was going to change in the future and see the achievement results were processed like curriculum instruction assessment, you know, how do we teach kids, how do we assess them ah, how will we know that they're meeting the standards and what are we going to do when they're not meeting the standard and production which would be basically questionnaires of students/parents and then what that data would do when they do the comprehensive data analysis to really understand where they are right now in any school or the district is then division the curriculum, the instruction, the assessment that are the process is basically this ah, that are put together to get the outcome would be developed around what we know from the data and monitored and measured over time and then a part of that is also once a school gets it, a vision then we'd have to figure out what is the leadership structure for us to within every school not just across the district, but Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phone s : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcour t reporting.com 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i) R \\ G I '\\ I {\\ L \\,J  \\ \\ Ir\\ 25 within every school to implement that vision what professional development is acquired ah, how we going to include parents, community and business so that we can make sure that kids can meet those standards and how we can evaluate on a continuous basis to know what we're doing is making the difference that we want. Q. All right. Do you know whether Little Rock ever developed school portfolios across the district? A. I know that Little Rock developed the district portfolio which is never totally done and it, well at least we got a start on that I should say\nI think they did the demographics and the achievement piece for the district. As far as the schools are concerned I do not think they developed those or got them started. Q. Can you embed the comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. Q. How can you do that? A. You can do it by doing all of the pieces. I mean whether or not you do a portfolio I mean it's a framework for looking at your data to know what you need to do ah, for getting a v i sion, a plan and evaluating it on an ongoing basis. So if they could do those pieces it could be embedded without them. Q. In doing those pieces does that require a lot more time and Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590-0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Fac s imil e e -mail : gloria . cobb@c obbcou rtreporting . com n n D I I I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1JRIGII I/\\L a lot more effort or is it basically the same? A. Oh, it would be basically the same. Q. So the portfolio were not absolutely necessary but just ah--how would you characterize them? 26 A. Well, the portfolio is just the framework and ah, what we were trying to do with it with schools which is what we have found in other districts is if we call it, if we're trying to develop a product it give more concreteness than saying oh, we're going to do comprehensive data analysis then we're going to get a vision, we're going to build a plan and figure out the professional development ah, school are more readily, usually more readi l y open to putting together the product so they have something to show for it but so that they have pieces all in one place that they can see the relationship of the pieces to one another. Q. Is that a correlation between the district portfolios and a data warehouse? A. Ah, absol--there's a relationship of the district portfolio and the data warehouse and that is the data warehouse would make the putting together of the data in a district portfolio easier and simplify it and ah, there's ah, this whole piece about everybody getting or using the same sources of information. Q. Have you any familiarity with the IT department of the Little Rock School District? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@c obbcourtreporting . com II n n I I I I 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 A. Not really. Q. Did you ever meet with anyone from the IT department of the Little Rock School District with respect to the development of a data warehouse or the development of school portfolios? A. Not that I remember. One or two of them could have been in one of the meetings or the training but I couldn't say for sure. Q. What has been your experience with IT departments with respect to dealing with program evaluation and assessment and embedding that into the curriculum? A. In general? Q. Yes. A. Ah, in general the IT guys always say that they can develop it themselves and specifically I have found that in most districts ah, if they start trying to develop a data warehouse by themselves two years down the road and millions of dollars later they're not done and--well, there's just a lot I could tell you but here's the bottom line is that while they're working on the warehouse they're not doing the work and if they're doing the work they can't work on the work that they're hired to do and if they're unless you hire lots of extra staff it usually doesn't work for the district to design their own warehouse plus now we have the tools out there, we have warehouses available that you can purchase that companies have devoted their development dollars to and it's much easier or Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com JI 11 ll n I I I I 1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 it's much better if districts buy a product and use their IT staff to make it work within the district and ah, they have the IT staff help with ah, the programming of specific reports or standard reports that the district or schools would want and need. Q. Did you enter into a contract with the Little Rock School District? A. Did I enter into a contract\nyes. Q. What was the purpose of the contract and what were its terms? A. Ah, the purpose of the contract was to lay out the scope of work and to ah, purpose how much it would cost to do the scope of work and to get the agreement on both side that we would do this work for this much money. Q. Was the work that was recommended by you completed? A. No. Q. Can you tell me what proportion of the work remains incomplete? A. I just think we got started\nso two / thirds to three/quarters of the work still needs to be done. Q. Can it be said that the comprehensive program assessment process cannot be or has not been embedded into the curriculum of the district? A. Absolutely. Q. Would you explain that? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 q 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 q 15 I 16 17 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, I would say that the structures for gathering data across the district within every school and ah, have not 29 changed since I started working there ah, so I think the use of data probably hasn't changed much with the exception of maybe student achievement assessments that Dr. Roberts was working on with her staff and visited school teams. Q. That Dr. Roberts was working on outside of PRE? A. Yes. Q. So are you saying that there was a separate assessment process underway in the Little Rock School District to your observation? A. Well I think so but this would be assessment of the curriculum and you know like ongoing assessments that would hopefully predict the assessment to us at the end of the year and in that that's not unusual that an assessment tool would be setup and curriculum instruction and assessment but that's not of comprehensive data analysis system. Q. Oh, the one that she has is not comprehensive data ana l ysis? A. It would be an element of it. Q. All right. Does it appear to you that that is at odds with the court directive remedy that all the PRE be in one source and t hat PRE coordinates the program evaluation and assessment process? A. No, that--- cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com q u q q I n d   3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 HELLER: I object to the form of that question as well. WALKER: All right\nI'll change the question. Q. Is there a utility in having all the persons engaged in program evaluation work together? A. Yes. Q. And cooperatively? A. Of course. Q. And without dissidence? A. Yes. Q. And conflict? A. Correct. WALKER: Just a moment. I'm going to take a moment, Doctor you can stay on the line ah, Chris I'm afraid to hang up so I'm going to step out for a moment and speak with Mrs. Springer and then I'll be right back to see if I have any more questions before I turn her over to you. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Excuse me, Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: Okay. [A recess was taken at 6:48 p.m., proceedings resumed at 6:49 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: Dr. I'm back on the phone\nMr. Heller I'm back on the phone\nare you there? HELLER: Yeah, I'm here. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   BERNHARDT: And I'm here. DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Can't: 31 Q. Doctor were you aware that with respect to data collection and data presentation to the outside evaluators that there was some problem with the accuracy of the data being assembled and passed on to the evaluators? HELLER: I object to that question as well\nassuming facts not in evidence. Q. Now you may still answer, doctor. A. Ah, I don't know other than what I've heard just recently about ah, dirty data if you will or bad data being sent to the external evaluator. I do know that when we were pulling the data together for the district portfolio or the district data source book ah, that a lot of that data was not clean and ah, yeah. Q. How do you know that? A. Ah, it's very easy to see dirty data in districts\nit's not uncommon, in fact every single district has dirty data which means that if you don't have a system for establishing procedures for entering data into any system that you have or in multiple systems that you have if you don't monitor it's probably going to be corrupt in some way. So like for example if a principal went into the student information system and wrote or entered some information about a student and--well Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n, i p I,, ....... II1  .1_ /\\, -...,,\\ \\_.1 I 32 like for your name they could, he could ah, the principal could put in John Walker, a teacher could write in J. Walker ah, another teacher could write in some information and code some data in there with J. Walker and somebody else Walker, J., and you would come up with four different kids. And so what it takes is a structure, a process, procedurally setup so that it's clear who's entering data and it's clear how they're going to enter the data and then it's monitored to make sure that it's done correctly. It's very, very easy to see when you start pulling together a portfolio of any sort it's very easy to see that there's dirty data even if you're not apart of the district. Usually what happens one of the first quarries that I do in a district might be looking at enrollment longitudinally or over time and, you know, I'll look at that data and go how could you have twice as many students in 2005 than you do this year? It's really is obvious when there's dirty data. If you haven't used the data ever I can guarantee it was dirty. Q. I see. And does that cause a flawed ultimate result? A. Absolutely, absolutely and there's a whole campaign nationally to get states to insure the quality of the data in all of their districts and schools because that is it's such an issue there's some data at the national level and at state levels we don't even know that have been reported for years, we don't know how inaccurate it is\nit's very common. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q. In your professional opinion what percentage of data is acceptable to be dirty and ah yes, is there a percentage or a threshold of acceptable dirty data? A. I don't know that anybody has ever put a percentage on there but ah, I just, if I could just beat around the bush to get to an answer to that. My latest book called Data Warehousing For Improving Teaching and Learning ah, I sent the first draft of the book out to twenty-five reviewers and these were reviewers in data warehousing companies, they are teachers, principals, administrators in the U.S., Canada, Australia. And I was physically asking that question, I made a statement in one chapter in the book about dirty data and how you've got to clean all the data and some of the people came back and asked the same question what is the percentage and they said they have in their experience ever never e xperienced a hundred percent clean data and so we should accept as a rule 95 percent clean data and being close enough with an error band. Q. All right. Do you discuss this in the book that you sent out for review? A. Yes. Q. What i s the title of that book? A. Data Warehousing To Improve Teaching and Learning. Q. Have you provided a copy of that to Dr. DeJarnette? A. No, I have not. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q. Would you ask your secretary to mail me a copy with a bill if you happen to talk to her in the next day or two? A. If--- Q. Well, that's all right\nI can ask her that myself. A. Well, I can ask her this but ah, if you want the--it's in draft form. Q. That's all right, the draft form is fine. A. We're still working on it. Q. Well, it will be useful even though it's in draft form. A. Okay. Q. And I'm sure Mr. Heller would like to have a copy as well. A. Okay, it's still a mess but it's a lot of work to do on it yet. Q. Well, I'm more concerned about the area of your book that discusses this particular problem. A. Yeah, except you're not going to see it in the version that's available right now. It's ah, because that came from handwri tten notes, some of it came from handwritten notes from the reviewer that I'm incorporating into it right now. Here I'm in Hawaii and I'm looking at it right now, I'm just writing in what the reviewer are talking to me about so you would not see that. If fact what the reviewers had asked is that I add a chapter devoted entirely to the, on cleaning the data so that piece isn't available. Q. All right\nwell, that's fine. Well, let me see ah, it is a Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria .cobb@c obbcourtreport i ng.com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 serious problem you're saying when data are overly dirty? A. Sure. 35 Q. That's just life though isn't it for most people whatever the subject is, if a thing is pretty dirty it shouldn't be used. That's a commonsense approach to the use of data and everything I would think wouldn't you? A. If the data is dirty yeah, I'd be cleaning it and setting up procedures and policies to make sure that it's entered correctly and then monitor it. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the questionnaires used in the process of the Little Rock PRE? A. Ah, I know that there are some, I personally have not seen the final version of what they're using or I don't remember them\nI have seen them. Q. Did you assist in the development of the questionnaires? A. I assisted with the first version and after that my staff member worked with them directly. Q. What's the importance of questionnaires in the comprehensive assessment process? A. Questionnaires add that wind from students, staff and parents to find out how programs, schools, districts can improve basically and if there's--it can tell about climate, it can talk about leadership, how students are treated, how staff are treated, it covers usually or we would want them to cover whether or not there's vision, a plan in place, and ah, get the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Fac simile e -mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 system setup for success. Q. All right. Can questionnaires sometimes be referred to as surveys? A. Yes. Q. All right. And can questionnaires or surveys or by whatever name those type things may be called can they be subjected to professional validation? A. Yes. Q. How would you go about doing that? A. Ah, well there's two things you'd probably want to assess on a questionnaire and one is validity and the other is reliability. And validity is about are we asking the right questions, are we asking the questions that will get to what it is you want to know and that would be content validity. And to get to content validity you basically have to administer the questionnaire to many people of background somewhere to ah, who you really want to use it with and ah, basically have them review it, take it ah, talk to them ah, that's one way of getting the content validity. And ah, reliability says that if you give the same instrument over and over you're bound to get the same results. In other words everybody, if one person reads the question they will read it in the same way so that it's clear, it's not misunderstood, it wouldn't vary over time. And so if they're looking for reliability when you give the questionnaire over time you be getting essentially the same Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 4, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 results. Q. Were you aware of a group called the Public Education Foundation in Little Rock? A. In Little Rock? Q. Yes. A. No. 37 Q. Did anyone inform you that there were program evaluations or assessments being undertaken by persons other than Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, if they did it didn't register. Q. Is a formative assessment a part of program assessment and evaluation? A. When I think of a formative assessment I would be thinking of assessments that teachers would use in the classroom with kids and it would be apart of curriculum instruction and assessment, certainly program evaluation and research should have access to that data and should work along with them in a typical district. Q. I see. Should the information that's assembled with respect to formative assessments be included in a data warehouse? A. I certainly would add it into a data warehouse . Q. And would this require therefore that all of the persons who are involved in any kind of assessment or evaluation process would at least have to know what each other is doing? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II q    1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 A. Somebody would have to know what everybody is doing\nyes. WALKER: doctor and I think you. I see. I have no more questions, CROSS-EXAMINATION Questions by Chris Heller: Q. Dr. Bernhardt this is Chris Heller, I'm a lawyer for the Little Rock School District and I've got a number of questions for you based on what you just told Mr. Walker. First of all, where are you located at the moment? A. I'm in Hilo, Hawaii. Q. Okay. And is there anyone there with you? A. No. Q. What did you do to prepare for this deposition? A. Ah, put my other work aside and I went back to look at ah, my proposal, the proposal for Little Rock School District and looked at some of what I did in the last year and a-half with Little Rock. Q. Anything else? A. Ah, I looked at some of Dr. DeJarnette's notes, most recent notes ah, but I, frankly I'm here to work so I haven't had a lot of time t o study them. Q. Anything else that you did to prepare for this deposition? A. Not that I can think of. Q. What notes do you have from Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, mostly there's a memo to you I think these were mostly Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  things that were in report or ah, quarterly reports which I just skimmed and ah, there's a status, there are status reports--- Q. How did you get that--- 39 A. there's one that ah, I think they're probably attachments that you or Mr. Walker was referring to earlier about the status of the hiring of PRE staff and ah, mostly our proposals. Q. How did you get those notes? A. Ah, they were faxed to me. Q. When? A. Yesterday. Q. By whom? A. By my secretary when we--I was flying all day yesterday all day so I didn't talk to anybody they just were here when I got here--- Q. When did you first receive those documents--- A. except that I knew from my secretary, from a call with my secretary that there would be a fax with some notes. Q. When did you first receive those notes? A. When I came. Q. These were not notes that you already had in your office in California? A. Ah, somewhere like the proposal that we developed\nthe proposal, the contract that we had and that's all I was really interested in refreshing my memory on what we, our role was. Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com q Q Q Q II n n  3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q. Well, are there some documents you have with you today that you reviewed to prepare for this deposition that you have not previously seen before you got to Hawaii? A. Oh, yeah. Q. What are those? A. Ah, well the status of the September 1st , 2006 where PRE is so I think you probably have a copy of, there was a compliance remedy memo to Beverly Griffin from Karen ah, there's a memo to Chris Heller about the needs for a data warehouse or a data base to look at demographic student learning perceptions and financial data, and school process data and ah, basically that one. HELLER: I want to make all of those documents an exhibit to your deposition so would you keep the entire set of documents that you got from your secretary that you reviewed for this deposition and either ah--- BERNHARDT: That's fine. HELLER: one of you ah--- BERNHARDT: She'll have better copies than I have. HELLER: We'll make arrangements so that they can be properly appended to your deposition. Q. When is the last time you spoke with Dr. DeJarnette? A. When did I speak with Dr. DeJarnette ah, last week because ah, to try to look at my calendar to see if I could do the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 u 8 9 ll 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposition. Q. Did you call her or she called you? A. To see if I could come to Little Rock. Q. Pardon? A. Or if I would be willing to do such a thing. Q. And she called you to ask you to give a deposition? A. Ah, she, I don't know--yeah, I guess so\nshe was asking if I would be willing to or interested in or available to talk about the school portfolio and our proposal and what we had intended to do. Q. How many times have you talked to Dr. DeJarnette in the last three months? A. Ah, that was the first time--I think that was the first time in that three months. Q. Have you communicated with her by e-mail or any other means during those three months? A. Well e-mail occasionally but I'm on the road 170 days usually a year so, you know, I don't get into the small talk. Q. When is the last time you spoke with anyone else from the Little Rock School District? A. Probably when I was there last which according to my records would have been April. Q. Did I hear you correctly that you've only been to the Little Rock School District twice, August 2005 and April 2006? A. That's what I saw on my calendar when I quickly looked at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com a n u n n I   8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 it this morning but that doesn't sound right, I think I've been there. Maybe it's only twice but I was trying to, it felt like I should have had a third date with them but I couldn't find it, so I didn't prepare for the--- Q. But did you discuss with Dr. DeJarnette any of the issues that Mr. Walker just questioned you about during your last conversation? A. During our last conversation we didn't have a lot of time because I had an appointment and ah, like within fifteen minutes of when we were talking and we were also looking at the calendar more than anything. Ah, I just asked what kind of information you would want in a deposition from me and how I could prepare and ah, she basically said that you would want to know about the school portfolio process and data and data warehousing and what I know about that. Q. So between April of 2006 and this latest conversation with Dr. DeJarnette you haven't had any substantive communication with anyone from LRSD? A. We would have I think ah, after April, after I was there in April we had a long conversation about our contract and the proposal and what was happening in the district as far as ah, our work and the trainings that we had proposed and mostly Brad Guise of my office had longer conversations with the PRE team about working with them on their questionnaires. Q. What work did you or--were your, your ah--- cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 A. Brad. Q. right, your ah, I don't know--what track of entity is education for the future? A. Education for the future is a not for profit organization that operates out of the California State University Foundation. Q. What's your position in that organization? A. I'm the executive director. Q. What work did you or EFF actually perform for the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, during the weeks of August 30th to September 2, 2005 I worked with PRE staff--it seems like there should be another date before that but I just couldn't find it today but I worked with PRE staff on their portfolio and ah, and did some training sorted or--- Q. What portfolio did you work on with PRE staff in August or September? A. District so there actually their district data as far or first book that was put together during the institute in Chico at the end of July of 2005. And then in August/September I did training with principals on looking at data on how to analyze and use data and what data and--- Q. How many principals were tracked? A. Umm, I don't know for sure. Q. Is it fair to say that you and your team at EFF trained Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com q q q n I II   6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three or four representatives of PRE in how to develop a district portfolio? A. Ah, yes. Q. And that was done in July of 2005? A. Yes, and actually were doing it. Q. And actually the port folio itself was developed in part during the work at EFF in July of 2005? A. Correct. 44 Q. And then you trained principals in August and September of 2005 in the use of data? A. Yes. Q. For what purpose? A. Ah, to understand how to analyze it and how to look at all data, to look at their system and to get them setup to create their own portfolios for their schools. Q. Okay. And then what was done in April of 2006? A. Ah, from what I remember ah, April would have been the time ah, I worked with PRE to set up the understanding about the company and this is the work that we're going to do and I believe it was in April that we did ah, that I worked with like Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette and a lot of people I can't name right now, administrators and some of the schools in doing an assessment of the district on a continuous improvement continuum and I also facilitated some training done. Q. Now you said to Mr. Walker that--well, first tell me what Cobb court Reporting P. 0. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com I u n II II n  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 training did you facilitate then? A. A big picture of conference data analysis, what data are important, why that data is important and then how that could lead to student achievement improvements in the district. Q. Okay. Do you recall even by category of people who was trained in those things? A. Ah, I would not be the best one to tell you about the positions of the people. But ah, I think it was Olivine's staff, Karen's staff, some principals and I know there were other people from the district office but I couldn't tell you what their positions were. Q. What's the last date you have any direct knowledge of the content of the Little Rock School District's portfolio, the district's portfolio? A. The l ast time I saw it would have been probably September 2nd_ Q. And why did you see it on September 2nd? A. Because it was September--oh no, that wouldn't be true. It would be April, the last date I was there which would have been April 2006 because it was ah, I saw it because the PRE staff was really, really excited to show me the bound version of it and they wanted me to go through the data and I did an analysis of the data and ah, told them what I saw in the data, some of the things that I saw in the data. Q. Okay. And in fact you made certain data statements for Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporti n g . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 example such as ah, observations about the composition of special education and discipline and things like that? A. Yeah. Q. And you said you have not seen LRSD district portfolio since April of 2006? A. No. 46 Q. You don't know what the contents of that district portfolio are today? A. No, I don't. I understood that they were updating it but I don't know if it did happen or I haven't seen it. Q. And is the work you did or you do probably reviewing the EFF ah, reflected in written agreements contracts? A. Ah, yes. Q. For the work we just talked about how was EFF compensated? A. Ah, a daily rate and ah, is that what you mean? Q. Pardon? A. Are you asking about ah--- Q. What basis, is it a proposal for a particular project or do you recall how much EFF--- A. It was a proposal that started I believe September 2005-- I'm not looking at the first date ah, 2005 through the spring of 2006 and it was for training, analyzing data ah, daily rate of air, hotels, per diems, ground transportation and you asked about ah, the second part of the question? Q. Oh, just whether, I think you've answered it, whether there Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 was a specific fee for a specific proposal or whether it's done on some other basis such as a daily rate? A. It was a daily rate and we considered these proposals ah, that's what we think is going to happen but we still only charge what really did happen. Q. Is there any work, other work that you've proposed but your proposal was not accepted by the district? A. No, this proposal was accepted, the one that I'm referring to was accepted. Q. Okay. So are you saying that there was nothing else that you proposed to do that the district declined to accept? A. No. We work together to create it, talked about what they wanted to have happen in the end and then work their way backwards into thinking about what it would take to get there and from what I understood from our conversations about what was possible in other words could be pull out teams of teachers or would we just have to work with principals ah, I created the proposal and sent it to them and maybe we refined it at the time back and forth especially dates--- WALKER: Chris let me interrupt you for a minute. Ah, I think it would be useful for us to have maybe a court reporter break for maybe five minutes. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Thank you. That you, doctor. HELLER: Dr. Bernhardt if you could just--- cobb court Reporting P . O. Box t4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e -mail: glori a . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i\n. f Jr\\'~- 48 WALKER: You can just stay on the line, you can just leave the phone up doctor--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: And go about your business and we'll come back on after Ms. Cobb has a few minutes to take a breather. BERNHARDT: Okay. WALKER: Maybe you could use one too Doctor. BERNHARDT: Yes, I could. WALKER: All right then. BERNHARDT: Okay, I'll be back. [A recess was taken at 7:24 p.m., proceedings resumed a t 7:29 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: We're back in. Dr. Bernhardt are you there? you a r e. BERNHARDT: Yes, I am. WALKER: All right. We're ready to resume if REPORTER: Thank you. HELLER: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Heller Can't: Q. Ah, is there any work Dr. Bernhardt that you or EFF performed for the Little Rock School District that we haven't discussed? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. BOK 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 II 13 14 n 15 n 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No\nI don't think so. Q. All right\nso if there was an answer I didn't hear that. A. Oh no, I said no, not to my knowledge. Q. How many school districts are you familiar with Dr. Bernhardt across the country that have in place school portfolios right now? 49 A. I would have to take a guess at that because a lot of my training would be in sometimes whole states or regions where there are multiple districts that come to it and then and there might be three hundred people in the room and I don't know exactly what they implemented ultimately but I would say there's, well at least two hundred. There are districts that are also putting together portfolios based on publications that I maybe haven't met since in national conferences people come up and tell me that they're doing it and I wouldn't know any other way. Q. How many districts that you've worked with that have planning, research and evaluation department of the size and quality of the one in LRSD? A. Ah, I don't even know how to estimate this\nlet me just give you some background. Q. Okay. A. In 2006 I worked in 21 states and was on the road 151 days\nnow that's lower than the previous fifteen years. And a lot of these might not be on an ongoing basis\nI see lots of districts Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Swee t Borne , AR 7216 4- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glor ia .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 JI 10 JI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so and I've never counted but there are districts, large districts like Little Rock used to have program evaluation and research departments or bigger ones maybe ten years ago but now they're probably dwindling across the country it depends on where you are and what state you're in I'd say the size of the program evaluation district department and whether or not assessment is included in it or separate. Q. Is it fair to say in your experience that most of the districts which might have a planning research and evaluation department with the, of the size and resources of the one in Little Rock would be districts larger than LRSD? A. What's the enrollment of LRSD right now? Q. About twenty six thousand students. A. Yeah, about thirty thousand ah, again that just depends on state, region, but I would say it would be average or maybe even bigger than some. Q. Are there any other school districts in Arkansas to your knowledge implementing school portfolios? A. At this point in time to my knowledge, no. I have worked in Arkansas before and did overviews of school portfolios but it wasn't a long-term engagement to know if they ever did anything with it. Q. Okay. Do you know whether any other school districts in Arkansas have data warehouses? A. Ah, I don't know. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria. cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 11 15 11 16 17  18 19 n 20 21 22 23 24 25 nR10111A i 1..j i 11...J 1 L 51 Q. Is it common for districts around the country to send their data on a regular basis, by that I mean every week or every other week to some central location within a state education department for storage? A. For storage? Q. Well, for--- A. No. Q. in other words the, whatever repository of the data would be at the state level rather than at the district level? A. No. And ah, where most districts the size of Little Rock are going right now is to data warehousing that would upload data every night from the student information system. Q. Can you give me an example of another district the size of Little Rock that would be doing that ah, be engaged in that process at the moment? A. Yeah, one in Grand Juncti on, Colorado\nSan Jose Unified in San Jose, California ah--- Q. How many students in San Jose--- WALKER: Well, let he finish the answer Chris, she was giv ing--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: ah, she's mentioned two, Grand Junction and San Jose. A. I know that there are lots of districts in North Carolina and South Carolina that are--oh, there's lots of district that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fac s imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rJ R I G ! i\\J A L 52 are, these are the ones, I'm just mentioning ones that I have worked with. Q. About how large is the San Jose, California? A . Ah , 3 2 , 5 0 0 . Q. Geographically as far as you know what would be the closest district to Little Rock that is ah, has school portfolios in place? A. That have school portfolios in place? Ah, there'd be lots of districts in Missouri. Q. Okay. A. In fact I've been working in the southeast corner of Missouri the last couple of years\nI'll be there next month. WALKER: Is that what they call Little Dixie? BERNHARDT: That's not the way I've heard it described. WALKER: Well, they have, it's a little name up there up near Blytheville. BERNHARDT: Oh, this is by Cape Girardeau. WALKER: Yeah ah. BERNHARDT: They call below Cape Girardeau the boot hill. WALKER: No, that's over closer to Fayetteville. BERNHARDT: Oh, that's not it\noh no, it's different\nyeah. HELLER: I think she's right and you're wrong Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-ma il : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 u 8 p 9 10 JI 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 John, Cape Girardeau is right up on the Mississippi River. WALKER: Okay, well I'm wrong\nI'm glad to be. Q. Dr. Bernhardt have you ah--- A. Oh, Houston--oh, that's not close to Little Rock. Go ahead. Q. Did you have the opportunity to review any of the program evaluations that were done for the Little Rock School District by Dr. Ross and Dr. Katiyar? A. No, I did not. Q. You know Dr. Katiyar? A. Personally, no. Q. Does EFF perform program evaluations of academic programs? A. We do but what we--we do but we like to do is work with districts to do their comprehensive data analysis and build their capacity to automate evaluations of different programs. Q. Now we've, we've--do you see any distinction between the t erm evaluation and the term assessment? A. Yes. Q. Okay, what's the difference between those two things? A. Ah, assessment to me means more like doing assessments of student learning or that's what comes to my mind when we talk about assessment. Evaluation, program evaluation would be to me talking about or doing the work of looking at the effectiveness of different programs and if they're meeting their intention. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So is there a different then between what I'd call a formal program evaluation and the general use of data on a regular basis in a school district to improve student learning? A. Would there be a distinction, is that your question? Q. Yes. A. I would make a distinction. I would hope that the comprehensive data analysis work would include the evaluation so that there's ongoing ah, there are ongoing measurement of quality. There's ah, there's also room for program evaluation to always be done by a third party, somebody that's objective and looking in instead of--looking from the outside in instead of the inside out. Q. But it's possible to do a program e valuation for e xample without having school portfolios in place? A. Yeah, the term school portfolio is just the framework basically and ah, yeah, you could do an evaluation without any, without schools ever looking at the data. Somebody could do an evaluation of someone without the schools having looked at it. The difference with the por tfolio framework is that schools are looking at, building the story of the school with data and looking at adjustments\nin a sense they're doing program evaluation when they do that work themselves. Q. Well, that was going to be the other side of the point. You can have valuable information from having some type of school portfolios in place and without ever doing a formal Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation of the way a program operates across the district? 55 A. Yes, as long as everybody knows how to do it, why they're doing it, and are really looking at all the data\nyes. Q. Right. So program evaluations can exist without portfolios and portfolios can provide valuable information that doesn't necessarily amount to what you would call a program evaluation as the program is implemented in schools across the district? A. Yes, except to that last piece\nI'm not quite sure if I heard that correctly. Q. Well, actually I'm talking about something that's in our compliance remedy where our program evaluations are supposed to look at the programs as they're being implemented in schools across the district. So--- A. You can look at it from inside or you can look at it--- Q. that's why I, I, I, real l y my point is and tell me if you agree that ah, school portfolios don't necessarily do that for you\nthey don't do that at all\nthey don't provide you program evaluation of for example early childhood on a district-wide basis? A. They would provide--if, if done well a portfolio would have al l the data necessary to do the evaluation. Q. And so would a data warehouse? A. Absolutely. Q. Okay. So ah--- Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 4 , Sweet Rome, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. There's an element of somebody looking, analyzing and knowing what they're looking for and what they're looking at that would be the piece missing. 56 Q. Right. And you said several times that school portfolios is just a framework and really a school portfolio is a type of school improvement plan is it not? A. I'd say it's a process and it's a product and it's a framework\nyeah. Q. And there are other types of school improvement plans that might use data to improve student achievement that might not follow exactly your outline of the school portfolio? A. That's correct. Although a good school improvement process should have a lot of the same elements of a vision, plan, a profess i onal development leadership to prepare you--- Q. Would you say that the requirements in Arkansas for the development of improvement plans at each school? A. I'm sor ry\nI didn't hear all of that. Q. Are you familiar with the requirement in Arkansas for t he development of school improvement plans at each school? A. Ah, yes. Q. Do you know what type of information is required of each school as a part of that requirement? A. Ah, I ' d have to say yes, I do and I'd also have to say I would want to look at it again. Q. Have you heard the acronym ACSIP, A-C-S-I-P, plan? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Do you know what those are? A. Ah, yes, generally. Q. What are they? 57 A. Aren't those the plans that the state are requiring of the schools? Q. Right. And do you know whether or not those plans are required to contain the same type of information that you would recommend in a school portfolio? A. Yes. What, in fact I would say that school portfolio would go above and beyond that because the school portfolio are the framework of what we're talking about for data analysis is usually a lot more comprehensive than what states minimally require. Q. Do you know specifically what's required in Arkansas? A. Not right now. Q. Okay. Let's talk generally then. These types of schools improvement plans the states require would contain at least some of the information that you would like to see in a school portfolio? A. Right. Q. Most typically student achievement, demographic information and maybe some perception of that? A. Yes\ncorrect. Q. And that information itself if properly analyzed can be Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501 ) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail: gloria.c6bb@cobbcourtrepor ting .com 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 useful in improving student achievement? A. Yes. A I Q. And are you familiar with the acronym SOAR in the Little Rock School District, S-O-A-R, student online assessment reports? A. Yes. 58 Q. Is that what you were referring to when you talked about Dr. Roberts being involved in other types of formative stuff? A. If that was what was just developed this last year because I know she was working with the pre-helm committee this last year. Q. And let me ask you if that process is to do quarterly assessments that are aligned with the state benchmarking plan to determine individual student problem, teacher problems, school or district-wide problems ah, is that the type of thing you would recommend that school districts do? A. Absolutely\nyes. Q. And isn't that a good example of using data to improve student achievement? A. It is--yes. It is not a com--that is an example of using data to improve student achievement. Q. And do you know whether or not that SOAR is currently being implemented in every school of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I do not. Q. Have you provided any written reports to the Little Rock Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  r-,,. I 0\" I I ' ) l ~ l l J l l J r/\\\\, .._'. _ 59 School District concerning any of your recommendations? A. To like the board? Q. To anyone? A. Ah, not to my knowledge other than the proposal at the very beginning. Q. But for example regarding any process necessary to embed an assessment process are any other recommendations you may have made none of those would be written recommendations? A. Well, in the proposal on setting it up ah, essentially that's what our proposal or contract is all about is, you know, what I though after discussing with PRE what it would take to embed a comprehensive assessment process. Q. Okay. How much time did it take to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, about a year . Usually it all depends upon how available the data are. Q. And what process should be followed to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, I'd say the first--well, if you're thinking from my prospective or from a school prospective ah, let's me just say then ah, the first thing I do is collect the data to find out where are we right now and ah, that's the piece that takes the longest. There are a few things that can be done simultaneously ah, not everybody at a school or a district needs to be going out collecting the data\nyou just need a Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 '\\ small team working on that. At the same time you could be creating this vision at a school and the district if necessary and ah, and then development of a plan that's based on the vision and the data. Q. And so would the school portfolio be different for each school in the district? A. It should be because the data are different, they have different kids and the vision--the structure should be the same, the contents would vary depending upon each school\nwho they have as students, who they have as teachers, how they line up the teachers to students, their vision, the plan that they put together, how they work together. Q. So isn't it possible that some districts may be concerned about some issues more than other schools, I mean some schools may be concerned about particular issues than other schools and that may result in a difference even in the types of data they maintain in their school portfolio? A. That's true although there are guidelines for what data we ought to be collecting at least on an overview look and then as there are issues that come up definitely the data ought to be getting deeper and deeper, dig deeper into that forest or into what's going on\nfind out what's really happening to get to the root cause. Q. I asked you before and I think you said you or your company had done program evaluations, have you published any work on Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 the subject of formal program evaluation? A. Ah, I just covered it a little bit in my books in terms of if you do this comprehensive data analysis work you would be setup for program evaluation needs assessment. Q. Right. And so is that what you say the relationship is between the comprehensive assessment work and a program evaluation that the comprehensive assessment work that's done puts you in a position to do a program evaluation? A. Absolutely. Q. And then part of your work with LRSD was not to perform any program evaluations was it? A. No, but in a ah, by setting up a comprehensive data analysis they should be setup to do their own program eval uation\nyes. WALKER: Thank you, Chris. Q. The, you worked with PRE and other I think to develop questionnaires for the Little Rock School District\nis that correct? A. Yes, but mostly my staff, I know Brad Guise worked with them on the content. Q. And you talked with Mr. Walker about the content validity and reliability. Ah, have those questionnaires been tested for content validity? A. The ones that Little Rock revised? Q. Well, let's say for example the ones that are used as Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourt reporting . com 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examples in your book? A. Yes, they are\nthey have been. Q. And how was that determined? 62 A. Well, we took about ten thousand students, for example the student questionnaire administered the questionnaires over time to get the reliability and validity ah, interviewed students. Q. So was that a determination that was made by EFF rather than some outside evaluation of the content validity? A. Right. Q. Is the same true with respect to reliability? A. Yes. Q. Now you work with I guess government entities such as school districts more than any other type of entity don't you? A. Yes, also I would say regional offices of that in the last few years\nregional offices where districts come to come together, yeah. I would say there would be probably our biggest contractor. Q. Have you seen a problem in districts maybe changing administrators or changing boards or the election changing the course of a school district with respect to how it approaches its curricular or evaluation or assessment type issues? A. Yes. Q. You understand it's fairly difficult for a government or entity to change and therefore the direction the entity goes will change as well? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria .cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com II - 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 A. Absolutely and that's one of the reasons I have a hard time telling you how many districts in our country would be using portfolios right now because I might be working with an administrative staff that is very gung-ho portfolio, school portfolio, district portfolios and then the superintendent changes and next year there is no portfolio or it might be just the opposite. leaders change. Yes, we see all kinds of changes happen when the Q. In Little Rock I mean you made the statement that generally assessment can't be embedded without the highest level of support\ndo you know whether in Little Rock the board supports the process of program assessment? WALKER: Now let me object to that for the record of course. We're talking about two different boards, one that was Mr. Heller's board and one that's not Mr. Heller's board. So the board we are talking about has to be identified. Q. Well, at any point in time Dr. Bernhardt do you have any reason to believe that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors doesn't support program assessments? A. No. Q. Any reason to believe that the superintendent doesn't believe in program assessments? A. No. Q. You testified that you made recommendations to LRSD about deeply embedding a process, is that correct? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Swee t Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs i mile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcour t r e porting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 A. Yes. Q. I think we've established that those were except as to what's contained in your proposal the recommendations wouldn't be written? A. Ah, I would say not but this is the clearest ah, the clearest documentation at the time. Q. And what do you say, I take it that you have your proposal in front of you, what do you say there that you propose to do for LRSD? A. Ah, I have it right in front of me. That I was going to do some training with school teams, district team on the portfolio and comprehensive data analysis and ah, we were going to work with each school in the district on questionnaire services and ah, a lot of it the training and follow-up training on the first part of the change was of course understanding how to look at data, what data, would that data would lead to continuous improvement ah, other parts of the training would be about getting a vision and plan and ah, and then just having the follow-up sessions to monitor and continue with the training with the school team. Q. Is there anything else in that proposal\nany other substantive aspects of that proposal? A. When I look at it those are the biggest pieces of work for me to do. Q. Okay. When you made that proposal were you aware of the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72 164- 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I ('1Dif'.:'f f !\\ i t requirements in the compliance remedy concerning a comprehensive program assessment process? A. Yes. Q. And so that's the only writing we have that reflects something you said to the district about what saw would be necessary for deeply embedding an assessment process? A. I believe so. 65 Q. Now tell us about certain things that you felt were needed by LRSD ah, a way to pull data together, tools for quick analysis, ways for teachers, administrators and others to get data from the same source and you said this was based, verbally this assessment of need based firmly on what you were told. Can you tell me who told you there was a need for any of those things? A. That there was a need for any of those things? Q. Right, I mean you believe that--- A. Or a need for the tools? Q. You know whether or not LRSD currently has all of those things in place? A. In ah, in working with the staff at PRE as we talked about putting together--well, one of the proposals and I think this was done in person that's why there's not a lot in writing, as we're talking about how we would go about getting all of the data together this is a very common discussion as I work with districts. Ah, one approach would be . to have schools go out Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 and try to pull the data together or to have the district pull all the data together and in ah, provide you know the district do it first and then provide some data for the schools what they can pull together which I would highly recommend because it's much better to have few people pulling it, trying to pull together all of the data and then supporting the schools that way than having schools try to go get the same information from one person or four people. And in those conversations we talked about okay, what about your demographics, your student information system rollup in other words the student information system is the transactional database that would be in every single school and we would want the school's data to roll up into one district student information system and so we were already talking, we were already talking this talk with the districts and what about perceptual data and what about student achievement data it's out of the same location is that accurate is the demographics on the student achievement in the student achievement files accurate ah, so that we could do desegregations easily and--- Q. You know--- A. and--- Q. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. A. ah, you know what kind of program evaluations, we talked all these things all the time and they, there were data pieces all over the place or in different l ocations and that's how we Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria. c obb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talked about warehousing. WALKER: Now let me interrupt again. I think we're going to loose the court reporter because she's gone beyond the time that we promised, we had said was two hours. How much longer do you have Chris? 67 HELLER: Probably no more than 30 minutes. WALKER: Doctor, can you be available for thirty minutes tomorrow? BERNHARDT: No, I cannot I am--unless what time are we talking here? WALKER: Late at night, you know, any time at your convenience. BERNHARDT: I'm working with a group of schools tomorrow until about 3 o'clock--- HELLER: There's a school board meeting here, John. BERNHARDT: I wouldn't be available 3 p.m., so--- WALKER: Pardon? HELLER: 3 o'clock Hawaii time puts us into a school board meeting here tomorrow night. BERNHARDT: But I wouldn't be available until 4 o'clock tomorrow. WALKER: I think we're going to--Chris can you try to compress, I mean, you know I mean this is a trial for Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 all practical purposes this is a trial deposition so could you, I mean do what you want to do but ah, I think Ms. Cobb is going to have to go\nshe's out of it. things as well. She's had a long day and other HELLER: Well, let me just ask Dr. Bernhardt what we can do, I mean what would be, I mean is there a convenient time we can finish this up for her before we get to trial? BERNHARDT: And when is the trial? HELLER: The 20th  WALKER: Well, you're not going to be a part of his case Doctor, so it could be, it will be before the 22 nd--HELLER: Well, I need to know, I need to know what she says. deposition. WALKER: We may not choose to use Dr. Bernhardt. HELLER: I still want to complete the WALKER: Well, I understand but you know, she has at least until the 26th or 21th--2sth or 26th . BERNHARDT: The earliest I could do this would be Saturday / Sunday or Monday. WALKER: Well, the judge is, we think we can do it, I think I'm available on Saturday or Sunday. the 14 th . HELLER: I can do it Saturday the 13th or Sunday Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gl ori a . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I  69 BERNHARDT: I have to move locations on Saturday ah, so it, I'd have to do it either before or after. WALKER: Well Chris I mean I think that you've gotten to the point of where--well, I don't know why don't you take another 10 minutes and see if you got some more real questions. HELLER: Well, we're not, I'm just barely getting into some of the stuff that you asked John, I mean it's going to be a solid 30 minutes, I can promise you that. I don't want to mislead you. WALKER: Well, we're looking at maybe an hour and a-half then if you say a solid 30 minutes, so why don't we try to resume it for Sunday the 13th? t he v ictim. different? BERNHARDT: Saturday the 13th? WALKER: This coming Sunday. HELLER: Sunday is the 14th . WALKER: The 14th  HELLER: What time? WALKER: Dr. Bernhardt sets t he time since she's Dr. Bernhardt? BERNHARDT So ah, are you talking four hours WALKER: Yes, ma' am. BERNHARDT: Ah, on Sunday I could do it at 9 a.m., I could do it anytime on Sunday. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I I I I I 1 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 HELLER: Would that be best 9 a.m., your time, I suppose it would have to be. So 1 o'clock our time, John. WALKER: 1 o'clock our time will be fine. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: Can we arrange this the same way\nI don't how you two got this--- WALKER: Yes, we'll arrange it the same way. HELLER: All right, great\nI'll be here. WALKER: That will give you an advantage so you have some better, some more questions. HELLER: It will give us all an advantage because I can ah, hopefully streamline things a little bit. Bernhardt. WALKER: Thank you very much\nthan you Dr. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: All right\nthank you Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: You're welcome. HELLER: Thanks John. WALKER: Bye-bye. BERNHARDT: Bye. [A recess was taken at 8:11 p.m., January 10, 2007 to resume at 1:00 p.m., on Sunday, January 14, 2007.J * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I I I 71 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me, a voice writer, and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impart i ality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to prov ide any service not available to all parties to the act. 1 ./ _j/. /. 1 My Commi ssion Expires: January 16, 2007 , $!') \\, (, ,\" J 1-1 /lli-\u0026amp;u c~ . Gloria Y. p::obb, Notary Pul::!lib\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1226","title":"Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records","Education--Finance","School employees","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Meadowcliff Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School administrators","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1226"],"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":["50 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\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR. ED WILLIAMS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoI . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIV JAN 19 2001 Off\\CEOF DESEGREGAi\\ON MON\\TORI G APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 3 I N D E X STYLE AND NUMBER 1 APPEARANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STIPULATION PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Examination by Mr . Walker ............................ 5 Examination by Mr . Heller ............................ 76 Deposition concluded ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . 78 EXHIBITS l. PRE ' S Compliance BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 4 ED WILLIAMS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 10 : 50 a .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above- entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken purs  ~ , to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Edward Remly , R-- E- M- L--E- Y, Williams . Q Dr . Williams , how long have you worked for the Little Rock School District? A Since September 1 , 1998 . Q Have you been providing primarily statistical services for the district during that time? A I have a much more extensive job description than just that . Q I understand but would you say that your primary work has been in the area of statistics during that period of time? A Q Yes . All right . And I take it that you ' ve also been serving as director for the last six weeks? A I ' ve been interim director since December 1 , 2006 . Q Now , before you were made interim director of PRE , did you have any discussions with Mr . Hattabaugh or Dr . Roy Brooks? A Since they ' ve been in the district , yes , I ' ve had conversations with them . Q Did you have any discussions about your becoming director of PRE on an interim basis before Dr . DeJarnette was removeci from the position? A No . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Q What was your relationship with Dr . DeJarnette before she was removed from the position? A Dr . Karen DeJarnette was my immediate superior . Q And what was the nature of the working relationship between you all? A We had discussions about our roles and performing my JOC, functions . She assigned duties to me to perform and I performed them to the best of my ability . Q A Q A Q Did you get along well with her? Yes . Did you have professional respect for her? Yes . Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superintendent , outside her presence , regarding program evaluation? A I don ' t recall . Q Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superi\"~~ ~  outside her presence, regarding any subject at any time after she was hired? A Yes , I recall some instances . Q Can you begin by reporting each instance that you met with the superintendent after she was hired , without her presence? A I know of one . I 'm just trying to recall if there were others . Q A When was that meeting? The one I recall with the most detail would have taken BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place in either April or May of 2006 . Q Did he invite you to his office? A I recall that he did , yes . Q A Q You did not take it on your own initiative to go there? No , I don ' t recal l that . What was the subject of the meeting? A It dealt with doing the statistical analysis for what I call the Meadow- Wak project but it would have been the Meadowcliff- Wakefield Teacher Merit Pay Project . Q Is that the project funded by Mr . Walter Hussman? A If I recall , that project was jointly funded by the school district and Walter Hussman . Q What is the source of your recollection? A I think , if I recall , it was just general conversation in the spring of 2000 . Although , that could have come from Dr . DeJarnette , some of that could have been board meetings . I can ' t - - I don ' t recall specifically . I think it was just general -- Q What was the statistical analysis you were called upon to perform? A Each school had a different statistical model in determining student growth so that ' s what we discussed to ma:~ sure that my role in doing that analysis was clarified. Q A Who else was present at that meeting? I don ' t recall if anyone else was present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Did he tell you the purpose of this statistical analysis? No . No, I don ' t recall that we discussed why it was done . Did you prepare a statistical analysis , pursuant to his request? A Yes , I did . Q A Q A Q Was that analysis reduced to writing? Yes , it was . Is it in a form which can be reproduced? Yes . What is it called? 8 A There were two separate reports , one for each school , and I think it was something like Meadowcliff -- I think it was either Meadowcliff and then Wakefield Teacher Pay for Performance or I don ' t think it used the term merit pay . I don ' t recall the specific title of the report but it dealt with -- it ~~- _ separate report for each school . Meadowcliff Teacher -- they changed the name of that program and it ' s called Teacher Challenge Project now but it was like Teacher Pay for -something like that. Q Okay. What was the statistical analysis methodology that you utilized in performing this task? A As I recall, we had two different models and the model at, if I recall correctly because I don't have my notes in front of me, the model at Meadowcliff looked at individual student growth on the total test battery on the Stanford 10 using national BUSHMAN COURT RSPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 curve equivalent scores from the fall administration to the spring administration . The Wakefield model dealt with us i ng t he same score , total battery and national curve equivalent scores , but looked at classroom averages in growth from the fall administration to the spring administration . Q Di d you perform an analysis? A Yes . Q Did you make any conclusions when you performed your analysis? A I don ' t believe i n the report that there was a conclusion section of that report . I don ' t recall that being in there . Q A Q A Q Was this in the nature of a program assessment? No . Was this in the nature of a program evaluation? No . What was it that you were evaluating -- well , what was it that you were measuring then , other than the movement in test scores from one period in a school year to another? A As I recall , both models looked at chance in student scores from the spring to the fall . Q On that basis , was it to be determined if there were material changes this reflected the achievement of teachers for purposes of determining merit pay? A The analysis that I did was to determine the student growth from fall -- did I say spring to fall? I meant to say fall -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q A You said fall to spring . Okay . Thank you . Fall to spring . teachers were paid based on a schedule . Q Who determined the schedule? From that analysis , A If I recall , for Meadowcliff we used the same schedule as 10 we did for the '04 -'05 Teacher Pay for Performance Report and the Wakefield payout -- I don ' t recall who all was involved in making that decision . I don ' t reca l l . There were a number of people involved . I was not a part of that decision- making process . Q Let me understand this . There were payments to be made to teachers , provided student -- in one situation , student average test scores increased\nis that fair to say? A Would you mind repeating that , sir? Q Yes . Teachers were to be rewarded with pay increases at one particular school for showing an average class improvement or improvement in test scores on an average basis within a class from one point in time to another point in time in the school year? A As I recall, it wasn ' t a pay increase . It would have been similar to a -- Q A bonus? A - - bonus or incentive pay . Q Okay . Now , would you not ordinarily, Dr . Williams, expe~ r children to have their averages changed as the year goes on if BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any teaching is going on at all? A I would think that would be a normal expectation that scores would increase . However , based on a standardized test score , there is a little bit different look at things . Q I see . Is it fair to say that also when you were dealing with this that you were dealing with only those teachers who dealt with academic subjects? 11 A If I recall , the model included pay outs for every employee in the school , irrespective of whether they were a teacher or not . Q Okay . So if there was an improvement of students in a particular class , then irrespective of whether a person worked in any class , all the people got paid extra? A If I interpret what you ' re saying , did the janitors get paid Q A Q Yes . Yes , sir . Do you know whether the rest of PRE was involved in this statistical presentation? A You mean in their report writing? Q Anything . First of all , did you discuss what you were tasked with Dr . DeJarnette? Did you tell her what Dr . Brooks had asked you to do? A Yes , I recall I did at some point , yeah . Q Well, when you began it , did you tell her what he had asked BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 you to do? A If I recall , the initial conversation about doing the analysis included Dr . Roberts and Dr . DeJarnette and myself and maybe the whole team was there when the subject was brought up about doing the analysis . Q At that time , did Dr . Roberts -- Dr . Brooks was not present\nwas he? A No . Q Did Dr . Roberts take the lead for the district on this subject? A Yes , based on the chain of command , yes . Q I see. Now , did Dr . Roberts explain why she got you involved or why Dr . Brooks got you involved , rather than Dr. DeJarnette directly? A As I recall , the protocol was for -- just to give you some background , the previous year we had -- there was an external person that did all the data analysis and there was no oversight by anyone . Whatever they produced was what the pay out was based on . A concern was that - - and there was some timeliness in terms of getting that analysis done , if I recall . The school district wanted to do the analysis this year and then have an expert double-check the data that we had ran in terms of ~ne statistical analysis . Q My question is : How is it that Dr. DeJarnette was circumvented? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q Dr . DeJarnette was , in fact , circumvented in terms of this task being assigned to you\nisn ' t that correct? A If I interpret your question as to why Dr . DeJarnette did not do the statistical analysis herself , she typically -- over the course of her time in the district , those types of things are assigned to those people most qualified to do those kinds of jobs , a true statistician . Q In terms of protocol , since you talked about protocol , the protocol of the district is for a person to relate to that next person at the next level , isn ' t it , instead of jumping over levels and getting assignments or making reports? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . That ' s a compound question . BY MR . WALKER : Q But you understand the question? That is the protocol , isn't it, Dr . Williams? A In this particular instance , with the Meadow-Wak project , Dr . DeJarnette had very little or no interest to be involved in the project at all. Q I understand. Did she tell you she had no interest in it? Did she tell you that? A That's the dialogue that I had -- that was my BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation of the dialogue that I had with Dr . DeJarnette . Q I see . Did Dr . DeJarnette make that report in your presence to either Dr . Roberts or to Dr . Brooks? A What report? That she had no interest in the project . I 'm not sure . Was this a time-consuming task of yours? 14 Q A Q A Q I would say no because it fell into my field of expertise . Didn ' t take much time? A I 'm trying to recall how much time I actually spent on tte project . The actual analysis took the least amount of time. Q Not the analysis . It ' s the data gathering\nisn ' t it? A I didn ' t gather the data . Q A Q You didn ' t gather it? No . Who gathered the data? A If I recall, whoever was the test coordinator at the time disseminated the test materials and sent the test materials to the testing company and then the testing company sent the results back to us . Q A So you made the analysis yourself? Yes, and we had an exterior statistician validate my results . Q A That analysis was computer- determined\nwasn ' t it? Yes, sir. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Q So you didn ' t really make a statistical analysis . It was a computer statistical analysis\nwasn ' t it? A Yes . We used S . P . S.S . Q So what did you do with respect to this analysis , other than program some numbers? A That would be a very simplistic way of answering what I did , yes , sir . Q And you all paid somebody the previous year a lot of money to do that? A I don ' t recall what was paid to that person . Q Who was that person the previous year , the external person? A It was a fellow that worked for the co-op in Camden . He has expertise in running the testing software and I can ' t reca1: his name right now . I 'm sorry . Maybe in a couple of hours it will pop into my brain . Sorry . Q That ' s fine . Now , let me ask : Before you became interim director , had you ever been responsible for supervising any group of employees within the Little Rock School District? A Q Not that I recall , no . So you have no previous experience in the school district or in education as a supervisor of employees? A Yes , I have extensive experience supervising employees in the education setting . Q A Can you tell me what educational setting that was? Yes , sir . I ran a three-year grant program at the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 University of Arkansas-Little Rock . 16 I was the director of that project . It was called STEPS , Successful Transition to Employment for Post - Secondary Students . two people . I supervised a staff of Q Two people . Do you have any educational training in program evaluation? A Yes , I do . Q Do you have your vitae? You didn ' t bring that with you? A No , but it ' s in the 1st Quarterly Report . Q I see . Does that vitae disclose that you have training in program evaluation? A It lists my degrees and my education , yes . Q Do you recall where you took a course or courses in program evaluation and assessment? A Q A Q At the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Was that in your undergraduate or graduate program? Graduate program . I see . Had you ever had any responsibility for program evaluation and assessment before you became interim director? A Could you repeat that? BY MR . WALKER : Will you play the record back , please? (Record played back at this time) BY THE WITNESS : Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 BY MR . WALKER : Q When was that? A It would be in my roles and responsibilities as a research statistician and a statistician with the Little Rock School District . Q In that role , did you supervise employees? A No . Q A I see . All right . You did apply for the position I mean , that was just with my Little Rock work . I have done research and evaluation prior to coming to the Little Rock School District . Q For any public school district? A On contract with another school district , no\ndealing with data from school districts , yes . Q Did you provide the statistical data that Dr . Bonnie Leslie relied upon before 2002 , which was presented to Judge Wilson by Mr . Heller? A I 'm unclear as to the types of analysis that Bonnie Leslie I 'm uncertain of what you ' re talking about . Q Did you provide the statistics to her , with respect to student achievement , that she relied on in her presentation to the court? A I 'm not familiar with her testimony to the court so I -- Q Are you familiar with the district's report to the court on Pre- K literacy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 A Yes , I am . Q Did you provide the statistics to Dr . Leslie regarding Pre- K literacy? A I don ' t recall providing any information directly to Dr . Leslie . If I provided any information , it would have been to the person that wrote that report . Q I see . Were the data that were presented in that report accurate and complete? A I ' d have to go back and -- that ' s the one that was written by Dr . Eddie McCoy? Q Yes . A I ' d have to go back and look at that report . I 'm not up to speed on that report . It ' s been four years . Q I see . A I would say off- hand that it should have been accurate , yeah , but I don ' t know . I ' d have to go back and look at the report to lay my eyes on it again . I 'm unfamiliar with that report right now. Q All right . Have you read the court ' s order regarding program evaluation and assessment in this case? A Are you meaning the court ' s compliance report? Q It ' s called Compliance Remedy , yes . A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . When did you first read it? Probably , well , fairly soon after it was available for BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reading . Q A Q A Q Have you had discussions regarding that with Dr . Brooks? On the Compliance Remedy? Yes . No . Have you had discussions regarding the Compliance Remedy with Dr . Roberts? A Nothing specific . Q With Mr . Hattabaugh? A No . Q I see . With Dr . DeJarnette? A Yes , extensive . Q I see . Was this one-on- one or was it in group meetings? A If I recall , it began one-on-one . When she first was hired , she and I had a meeting and went through the Compliance Remedy and then discussed those issues that came up in the Judge ' s order . Then , as the days and weeks progressed , it was less one-on-one and always with groups as those people came on board and we started to implement the Compliance Remedy . I see . Team meetings . Things like that . 19 Q A Q Do you have any experience in preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations? A Q Yes , I have done those . Where have you done those and where can we see them? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 A If I recall -- are you talking about just within the Little Rock School District? Q Well , let ' s start with Little Rock . A Let me think . I did one on HIPPY , some year - round evaluations . I did one on middle school transition . There could have been others but those are the ones I recall the most. Q Do you recall who worked under your supervision in preparing and overseeing the formal program evaluations in those areas? A Q A Q A Q I didn ' t supervise anyone . I see . Whom did you report to? Dr . Kathy Lease . That was my immediate supervisor. So you reported to Dr . Lease? Yes . Were those the program evaluations that were either lost or misplaced or not utilized in the court proceeding? A Q I 'm unsure of that question . Let me put it another way . Were they ever -- were those draft reports? A Are you talking about the 2002 -- Q Yes . A My recollection is that I turned all that information over to Dr. Kathy Lease and, what happened after that , I don't know in terms of reports to the courts . Q I see . Did you have extensive experience in overseeing the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 preparation of program evaluations? That ' s yes or no . A Yes . Q Is that the experience you ' ve just described? A You aske d me about my experience in the Little Rock School District and I replied to those questions based on what I recall my experience with the Little Rock School District is in terms of program evaluation . I mean , there ' s other things . Q Are there programs in the Little Rock School District that are designed specifically to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? A I didn ' t catch that. I 'm sorry . BY MR . WALKER : Could you replay that for us? (Record played back at this time) BY MR . WALKER : Q A You can answer when you want to . I lost my train of thought there . I 'm thinking all over again , sorry . The programs that we have implemented , national research and in some of the readings I have done , has shown that they have a positive impact on the achievement of AfricanAmerican students . So , to answer your question , we implemented those programs . My understanding is , we implemented those programs based on the national research but we needed to determine if those programs , while they may work in another case city in the United States , do they have the external validity in BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 terms of improving the academic achievement of African- American students , as the national research says they do . In a roundabout way , sir , yes , we have implemented programs that will -- we feel should impact the achievement level of AfricanAmerican students . Q Can you identify any programs that are specifically defined and designed by the Little Rock School District for the purpose of improving African- American , specifically , African-American student achievement? A If we ' re talking about the eight program evaluations that we did , all eight programs are either national research programs or based on models of national research designed to improve and impact the achievement level of African-American students . Q Do you recall reading the reports that were submitted by Mr . Heller to the court indicating that there were a number of programs that the Little Rock School District was implementing that were specifically designed to improve academic achievement of African-American students? A Q What was the date of that report , sir? 2001 - 2002 . A There ' s a possibility that I read that report . years ago. That ' s five Q Did you understand, for instance, the City- Year Tutoring Program to be designed specifically for improving African - American student achievement? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 23 I 'm not familiar with that program . That ' s fine . Did you understand the 21st Century Community Learning Program in Mabelvale School to be designed specifically to improve African- American achievement? A It is my recollection , in looking at their website on the current 21st Century , that those activities are designed -- the activities that each individual school can implement are designed to improve the academic achievements . Q A Of African- American students? I believe so , yes . If I recall , looking at their current website . I ' d have to - - Q Isn ' t it true that all the programs that you all have in the district are designed to improve the academic achievement of all students rather than simply African- American students? A It is my understanding that the programs that we ' ve chosen are programs that the national research has shown to improve the academic achievement level of African-American students . It is in all likelihood that the implementations of those specific programs will have an impact on all students ' achievement . Q So your understanding is that when you focus on improving the academic achievement of African - American students , white students don't suffer\nisn ' t that correct? A I think there ' s been enough written about the data nationally and the data with the Little Rock School District to affirm that , yes, those types of programs that we are BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implementing are having an impact on all students . Q Now , are you familiar with the various programs that are set forth in the compliance report , 2001 - 2002 , to the court? A Q A Q Yes . Wait a minute . Yes . Sorry . You just said 2001 - 2002? No , I 'm not familiar with every one of those programs . All right . Now , Have you ever had a one - on - one 24 conversation with Joy Springer regarding program assessment and evaluation? A I don ' t recall having a one - on- one conversation with Joy Springer . Q A Q A Q Have you ever had such a conversation with John Walker? One-on-one? Yes , sir . Not that I recall , no . Have you ever been privy to any one- on- one conversations regarding program assessment and evaluations between Ms . Joy Springer and Dr . Karen DeJarnette? A You mean one- on-one where it would be Joy , and Dr . DeJarnette and myself? Q A No , that ' s not what I mean but I ' ll just take that -- Okay . Then I can rescind my answer . To answer the previous two , yes , I ' ve been meetings where I responded to questions by Joy Springer and John Walker , yes . Q I see . Those have been meetings where -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 A I don ' t consider those one-on- one . Q Now , have you ever been in a meeting where just you and Dr . DeJarnette were present with Ms . Springer? A I don ' t recall ever being in a meeting like that . Q Or where Dr . DeJarnette and you and Mr . Walker were the only ones present? A Q A I don ' t recall , no . Has Mr . Walker ever asked you for any private information? No . The only conversation I recall ever having with Mr . Wa l ker was an FOI request . Q I see . You have passed Mr . Walker in the hall and in other places and exchanged pleasantries\nhaven ' t you? A Yes , I have . Q Now , were you informed by anyone that you were not to cooperate with ODM or Joshua in the last two years? A I don ' t recall ever being instructed not to talk to ODM. was instructed not to talk to Mr . Walker or the Joshua Intervenors unless our attorney was present . Q A Who gave you that instruction? Attorney Chris Heller . Q I see . When did he give it to you? A I don ' t recall the specific date . It was an e - mail and it I was probably in the fall of 2005 , maybe spring of 2006 . I don ' t recall exactly . Q I see . What precipitated that e-mail? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I don ' t know . Q I see . Did you and the staff of PRE meet to discuss that e - mail from Mr . Heller? A I don ' t know if the staff discussed it . I know that Dr . DeJarnette and I had a discussion about it . Q I see . And what was the - - A I can ' t recall if we brought it up in a staff meeting . It ' s in all likelihood that we did . Q What comments did Dr . DeJarnette make about Mr . Heller ' s e - mail to you regarding that subject? A I don ' t recall any comments by Dr. DeJarnette on that . Q A Q A What comments did you make to Dr . DeJarnette on that? I just reiterated what the e - mail said in my own words . I see . Why did you do that? I just felt that it was important that we -- I just felt that it was important that that information be clarified . Q I see . Did you get clarification from Dr . DeJarnette regarding that? A No . As I said earlier, I don ' t recall her ever making a comment on my reiteration of that . Q Did you go to her to raise the subject? A If I recall , we just happened to be in the office -- well , I think she had the e - mail on her desk and showed it to me or something like that . I was in there for something else and that just came up in conversation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 l l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 27 I see . What is the responsibility that you assumed for the 7th and 8th Quarterly Reports that were submitted to Joshua , ODM, and ultimately, the court? A I provided to Jim Wooleb any appropriate information that was pertinent to my role as the team leader and as the facilitator to any of the evaluation meetings and then was asked to peer review, if possible , the reports . Q A Q I see . You were the team leader? I was a team leader , yes , sir . I see . Why were you making these comments to Wooleb? A Mr . Wooleb was -- one of his roles was to write the quarterly reports . Q So you had no responsibility for writing the reports? A I provided him information and documents that could be inserted in the reports . Q I understand . But you had no responsibility for writing the report\ndid you? BY MR . FINLEY : Other than what he just testified to? He ' s testified he provided information and peer review\ndidn't he? BY MR . WALKER : That ' s a coaching objection . BY MR . WALKER: Q Did you have any responsibility for writing -- you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand what I mean by writing? A Q Yes . Did you? 28 A I wrote -- I may have written documents that were inserted into the quarterly report but the entire report , it ' s compilation was the responsibility of Mr . Wooleb and we provided, each of us , depending on our roles , provided him with written i nformation to be inserted into the report . Q So Mr . Wooleb had the respons i bility for preparing the prel i minary draft and submitting it to Dr . DeJarnette , is that fair to say? A Q He was responsible for compiling the information . I see . Now , who had the responsibility for preparing the report , the quarterly report? A Q PRE . That ' s right . You remember the Compliance Remedy said that PRE was to prepare the compliance report\ndo you not? A Yes . Q That wasn ' t a task of Dr . Roberts\nwas it? I ' ll give you the report to refresh your memory. A PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District and -- Q No . I 'm asking you to look at the document . Did not the judge say that that was a PRE delegated duty? That ' s different from the evaluations . Let ' s take a minute break to look at that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Off the record) (Back on the record and the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : 29 BY MR . WALKER : Q A Q A Q A Does that refresh your recollection? Yes . Whose responsibility was it to prepare the report? The judge asked that PRE submit written quarterly updates . To whom? To the judge and to ODM and Joshua? Yes , but PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District . I 'm not asking your interpretation. If it says PRE , it's sans LRSD . Q A Q That ' s your position . Now , nobody above Dr . DeJarnette had any responsibility for doing this task\ndid they? First of all, did anybody above Dr. DeJarnette, meaning Dr . Brooks and Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , participate in these meetings that were held regarding program assessment and evaluations that took place in the last two years? A Did they attend team evaluation meetings? Q Yes . A Yes . Dr . Roberts and Mr . Hattabaugh did . Q Did they do so before the year 2006? A I Id have to go back and look at the minutes of the meetings . I 'm uncertain on that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Isn ' t it fair to say -- And I know Dr. Roberts accompanied Dr . DeJarnette to 30 Memphis to discuss the comprehensive program assessment process Q Well , I 'm talking about only the ones where Ms . Springer or Mr . Walker or both of them were present . Isn ' t it true that , until recently , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts were not present in those meetings? A As I recall , they , as did Joshua , attended more of the year two , Step II Program Evaluation meetings than in year one . Q Now , Ms . Springer has been to more of those meetings than Dr . Roberts\nhasn ' t she? A I ' d have to go Q Just on your recollection . I 'm not asking you to go and check your notes . Based on your present recollection , isn ' t that true? A In all likelihood, it probably could be . Q All right . A I did actually look at some data on that and I think that Joshua attended about 30 to 40 percent , if I recollect , I don ' t have the data in front of me but about 30 or 40 percent of the year one meetings and about 80 to 90 percent of the year two meetings . Q What caused you to make that kind of assessment? Was it in anticipation of your testimony in court? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 31 I was curious about attendance . What are you going to say to the court when you are called to testify , whenever you testify regarding program a s sessment and evaluation? Please just give me a statement of what it is . A What program assessment and evaluation -- Q Well , you ' re going to be called as a witness\nare you not? A Okay . Q And you were , until last night , the director? I guess you ' re still director until they let her go back to work . Have they told you that she can ' t go back to work until next week? A I 'm understanding that Dr . DeJarnette is -- I don ' t know if they used that terminology . That ' s not the terminology they used with me . Q Are you informed that she will not report to work until after the 16th of this month? A Q A Q A Q A Q I was told that she will be coming to work next Tuesday . Who told you that , by the way? Dr . Roberts . When did she tell you that? This morning . I see . What else did she tell you this morning about that? That ' s all she told me . I see . Did she tell you why she was being continued on suspension, despite the school board ' s ruling last night? A No , she didn't . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 Q Did she tell you what you were supposed to be doing in the meantime? A Yeah , continue on with the work that we ' re doing . Q And what are you doing? A We ' re doing feasible , modified and ongoing assessments of the year one Step II evaluations . We ' re compiling data on the Vision -- data to report on Vision and we ' re starting testing , we ' re starting mid- year testing . Q You ' re also starting mid- year testing? A This week . The test data -- the test materials arrived yesterday . Q So you are in charge of that until next week? A Q A Q Yes . That ' s a responsibility of the director of PRE . Did she give you any written directions? No . Did she meet with you or did she talk with you on the telephone? A Do you mean today? Q A Q A Q A Q Yes . Both . So when did she mee~ with you? This morning . For how long? Five minutes. What did she say to you this morning? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 A Just that Dr . DeJarnette would report next Tuesday and continue on with the work that you ' re doing . Q I see . Now , what will you say to the court about the program evaluations and assessments being embedded in the fabric of the school district? A That the IL- R is our comprehensive assessment process . Q I have asked a question . Would you respond to my question? Do you consider that responsive? BY MR . FINLEY : If you don ' t consider it responsive , ask him another question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Do you consider that responsive? A Yes , I do . IL- R is our comprehensive program assessment and it deeply embeds program evaluation in the Little Rock School District . Q When was that IL- R developed? A It was developed beginning with the meeting that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Karen DeJarnette had with Dr . Steve Ross per the request of the court . Q So that as of that date , the process was embedded? A No . Through work with - - Q I see . A If I recall, that process was approved by the school board in December of 2004 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q When did the process become embedded in the fabric of the d i strict? Can you give me a date when it became embedded? A It would be embedded when the school board approved that deeply embedded program assessment process -- Q So that ' s all the school - - is it your opinion that all the school board had to do at that point was approve the resolution? That ' s yes or no . A Their approving the regulations formalizes the deeply embedded comprehensive program assessment process . Q So that ' s all tha t needed to be done? Is that your opinion? A The district regulations are the backbone of the institutionalization of all policies and procedures in the Little Rock School District . So , yes , that is the overriding central decision that had to be made by the district board of directors to formalize the deeply embedded program assessment process or to approve the comprehensive assessment process that institutionalizes program evaluation with the Little Rock School District . That was reaffirmed at the June , July board meeting with an affirmation to continue program assessment . The combination of those two pieces , the formalization as well as the institutionalization of the comprehensive program assessment process , followed up by a commitment to resolve -- I can ' t remember the exact name of that document -- a commitment to resolve that, irrespective of what happens this month , the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 school district will continue to evaluate programs for the expressed outcome to determine the impact of those programs on the achievement of African- American s~udents . 35 Q So your position is that the only thing that is required is f or the board to pass a resolution and then to reinforce that resolution one time\nis that fair to say? That ' s what is meant by embedding? A There were not two resolutions . One was approval to formally ins titutionalize program evaluation , i . e ., the comprehensive program assessment process within the structure of the Little Rock School District . You follow the regulations . Q I see . Are you familiar with IL- R? A Q A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . What is meant by IL-R? Is that a board policy? It ' s a regulation . Is that a board policy? A policy/regulation , yeah . When you go to the website and look it up , that ' s what pops up . Q That ' s what pops up? A Well , you go to board -- go to the website and I think it ' s policies or something . Q Give me you opinion of the difference between a policy and a regulation . A A policy is a very broad stroke at something . Regulations are those things that will be implemented to address that broad BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stroke . Q A Q Did the board approve IL- R? Yes , December of 2004 . That ' s my understanding . Or did the board approve I L? A It ' s IL- R. Q So you ' re not familiar with policy IL? 36 A That ' s the one from 2002 , I think . That ' s a former policy . Q All right . What i s meant by the term, in your opinion , to deeply embed , as used by the district court? A That an entity , an initiative , an idea is institutionalized . Q What does that mean? A That it becomes a part of the culture of an institution or entity . Q When did it become the culture -- when did program assessment -- the process that you say is underway become part of the culture of this school district? At what point? A When the board approved the regulations in December of 2004 , that institutionalized the process . Q I see . Doesn ' t part of the embedding process require that the principals be informed of it , school principals? That ' s yes or no . A My understanding , because I got something in the mail the other day , when the district approves a policy or regulation then that policy or regulation is sent to just about everybcay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So , yeah , I guess that ' s how they send that policy out to all the principals . Q Have you ever been in any meetings by PRE with all the principals of the school district regarding the evaluation and assessment process now underway? A Yes . There have been two meetings . Both of them -- yes , 37 there were two meetings . One in January 2005 and one in January of 2006 . Q Did you conduct those meetings? A No . Q Who did? A I think it was in conjunction with Dr . Steve Ross , because , actually , Steve Ross came over and discussed the programs to be evaluated , and then the whole team was there and talked , Dr . DeJarnette , Jim Wooleb , Tracy Robinson and myself . Q Did you speak? A Q A I recall I spoke a little bit , yeah . What did you speak about? I can ' t remember . I ' d have to go back and look at my -- I don ' t know . Q A Q A Q Who is the better -- you have some notes , you say? No , I don ' t . You said you had to get them . I know . I don ' t have any . I wanted those notes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I 'm sorry . I don ' t know why I said that . I don ' t have any . Q Okay . A I was thinking that they videotaped that but they didn ' t . I apologize for that mistake . Add a little humor there . I got your blood up -- Q It definitely did . Who is a better witness to talk about program evaluations in a comprehensive sense before the court , you or Dr . DeJarnette , in your opinion? A Given the communications and ongoing meetings we ' ve had, I think that any member of our team would be equally apt to give a good overview of that . I think Dr . DeJarnette would have an advantage because she has been the director for just about or right at two and half years . When you move up a level , you know you ' re what would you say -- you ' re privy to more inside and out ' s . I mean , she was privy to -- she met with Dr . Steve Ross and I didn ' t . I can ' t say actually was said in that meeting so , yeah , in a bigger picture , she could add in those nuances . Q Well , she had the responsibility for overseeing all these people in their various roles\ndidn ' t she? A Yes , she was the director . Q And you did not have that responsibility\ndid you? A That ' s correct . Q I see . So you are giving an opinion based on your observations of those other co-workers ' activities rather than intimate knowledge in association with it\nisn ' t that fair to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 say? A No , I -- the comments I made were based on the fact that Dr . DeJarnette was privy to more conversations with people involved like Dr . Roberts , Steve Ross , Dr . Catterall than the team was as whole . What I did say was there no reason that non~ of the team members couldn ' t give a very good overview of tha~ process . Q Are you saying that Maurecia Robinson can give the same overview of the process as you? That ' s yes or no . A I see no reason why not . She was involved in all the team meetings and she was privy to all the same information that I was . Q She never spoke with Ms . Springer\ndid she? A I don ' t know . Q And you never spoke with Ms . Springer so you can ' t give the same overviews , as Ms . Springer has so much knowledge about process . You understand that she supposedly has a lot of information about the process\nright? A Who? Q Ms . Springer . A Q I presume that she would , yes . I see . Have you read Ms . Springer ' s affidavit in this matter? A I have read a affidavit and I 'm -- oh , the one that was supplied as a court document? I think there are couple of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 affidavits out there . Q Can you say yes or no to the following : That Ms . Springer regularly brought to the attention of the PRE a need for program assessment to be comprehensive , focused and deeply embedded into the district ' s curriculum and instructional programs? Did she do that? A Q A I don ' t ever recall Ms . Springer using that terminology . That ' s fine . What terminology did she use? I 'm just trying to think of the comments she made . I think the comments she made were concerned about in some of the meetings we like the pre-Kone , that ' s one she asked about making sure we had a program description in there . I 'm trying to think what else she said . I don ' t recall her using that extensive terminology in terms of comments made in the meetings . Q You don ' t want to rely on your memory for what took place at any of those meetings\ndo you? A Q A Q We have notes of the meetings . You do have notes? Who has notes of the meetings? They're in quarterly reports . Other than the quarterly reports , are there any other notes? A Not that I'm aware of . Q I see . Those notes don ' t address what Ms . Springer said\ndo they? A I'd have to go back and look at the quarterly reports on BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 what was said but I thought there were comments in there , you know , Joshua asked this question and made a comment . I thought they were in there but I ' d have to go back and re - read them . Q Were questionnaires to be used as a part of the comprehensive assessment process of the court or required by the court? A The judge required that the data that we gathered not be only test data and that we gather a wide range of different types of data to use in that process . Survey ' s would have been one of those pieces . Q I see . Was that done before the fall of 2006? A Oh , yeah . Q So you disagree with Ms . Springer when she says it is further noted that the use of questionnaires , which the cour~ expected, Page 62 , footnote 39 of the Compliance Remedy to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process , will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006? Do you disagree with that? A When I read that -- Q Do you disagree is my question . That ' s all . I 'm not asking for an explanation . Do you disagree with her -- A Well , I have to - - if I 'm going to answer that then I need to answer with an explanation. Q Well , you can but , first of all , you can tell me whether you agree or disagree . That ' s my only question . Do you disagree with Ms . Springer? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . FINLEY : He can also do neither . or disagree. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can say neither . That ' s fine . 42 He doesn ' t have to agree Say neither . A I presume -- yes , because I presume what she meant dealt with the district portfolio but we have using surveys . Surveys have been an intrical part of all -- yes , all eight program evaluations so we started those surveys . If that ' s what she meant then the answer is no . If she was talking about surveys used in the eight program evaluations - - because using surveys in all eight program evaluations So you disagree with her . That ' s fine . Well , I mean , I 'm uncertain what she meant . we ' ve been Q A Q That ' s fine . Now , do you disagree with her that PRE contemplated the use of a data warehouse to either supplant or complement the use of a portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program? Do you agree or disagree with that? A That the data warehouse would supplant or what? Q A Q Complement . Complement. One or the other . The use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program . Do you disagree? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I don ' t agree with that whole statement , no . That ' s fine . What is your disagreement? Portfolio assessment . It ' s not an assessment . process . Well assessment is a process\nisn ' t it? It ' s a Q A A lot of things are a process . A portfolio is not an assessment . In that terminology , the portfolio is our process but , yes , the data warehouse can compliment and it does complement the district portfolio . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette not indicate that this data base would not be ready for some time after June 13th , 2006? A I don ' t recall her ever saying that to me . Q When will the data warehouse be ready? A The data warehouse was up and running at the end of July 2006 . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette aware of that? A I presume . She attended one of three days of training on the use of the data warehouse in the middle of July . Q A Q Did you attend that training? Yes , sir . Who else attended the training from PRE? A Maurecia Robinson , Jim Wooleb , myself . Dr . DeJarnette, like I said , attended one of three days of training . What was in the data warehouse at that time? 43 Q A We had the student demographic universe set up . I think we BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 had the financial informat i on , we had Crystal Reports , there was another it was just called Demographics , I think , Universe . There were some other ones also but they weren ' t appropriate for what we would use them for . There was like -- I think when I popped it up in July , there were like eight universes . Q I see . When were those universes created? A Over a period of time . From the time the school district brought in a consultant to normalize the data . When was that? I don ' t recall that exactly . What year was it? I think it was early 2006 . Q A Q A Q I see . So at least , as of early 2006 , the data were not available for use in embedding the process at least in any comprehensive form? A No . Q They were not? A Yes , the data was available . Q But it was in many sources at that time? A No , it was in -- most of the data that the district has that is embedded is stored in the district ' s mainframe computer , which we call the AS400 . That data has always been available . By the way , we ' ve had Crystal Reports since 1992 . Q I see . So there was no real need for a data warehouse then , was there? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes , there was . What is the reason? If you had all this data available , why would you need a new data warehouse? A Have you ever bought a garden house that ' s a half- inch 45 diameter and turn it on and it takes 10 minutes to fill that bucket of water? Then you go out and buy that one - inch diameter water house and it takes a minute to fill that bucket of water . Which one would you rather have? That ' s the analogy to using the AS400 compared to the data warehouse . When we did data requests for the program assessments or program evaluations , it usually took a week to get the data . With the data warehouse, seconds . Q Were you familiar with the data warehouse that was completed by Dr . Burnhart . A Other than just some sales presentations , no . Q Was she trying to make a sale? A She talked about it while were out in California and she invited - - the people from Tetra-Data attended that meeting . Q Did you ever inform anybody in the school district that she had a financial interest in selling this particular program? A I don ' t - - I know she ' s on the board of Tetra or was o~ board . Tetra was sold and I think she still has some kind of relationship with the company . She was on the board of directors of Tetra so I don ' t know what kind of -- if they were paid to be on the board or not so - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever have a discussion regarding this with either Mr . Heller or Dr . Brooks or Dr . Roberts? A Q That she was on the board? Yes A No . I know Karen , at a meeting that we had with Mr . 46 Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , told them that she was on the board . Dr . DeJarnette told them that she was on the board . Q Did she say she was on the board or did she say that she was on an advisory board? A I don ' t recall . Q A I see . Now that Tetra has been sold , maybe it ' s just an advisory board . Q A Q How do you know Tetra was sold? I went to their web page and it said they were sold . I see . When did you learn that? A About a month or a month and a half ago . They were sold this summer in July or August to another larger software company . Q So that means - - do you know whether Dr . Burnhart went with the sale? A Yeah , because her name was associated with the new company ' s web page dealing with Tetra . Q What did it say about her? A I don ' t recall . I ' d have to go back and look . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 Q But whatever it said allowed you to conclude that she was a part of the managing group of Tetra - Data? A Well , she was involved with Tetra - Data . I don ' t know what her roles and responsibilities were . Q Do you agree with Mrs . Springer that there are various factors which suggest that the vision of the current administration of LRSD de - emphasis the importance of PRE and the Compliance Remedy? A No , I don ' t agree with that . Q I see . Do you agree that , in March of 2005 , PRE did nc. any longer report to the superintendent? A The reorganization , I think , was effective July 1 of 2005 so , no , I don ' t agree with that statement . Q I see . Do you agree that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminished the ability of PRE staff to make the Compliance Remedy their major focus? A I don ' t agree with that statement . Q What additional -- do you agree that there were some additional responsibilities imposed upon PRE afcer the tP~  of the year 2006? A Based on my interpretation of job descriptions , there were no additional job responsibilities imposed . Q I see . No adaitional tests placed by those people upon PRE? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A You mean in addition to our work on the Compliance Repcrc~ Yes . Yes, we had other jobs . Like I said , my interpretation of my job description , those were not additional . of our job , the work we did . They were part Q Did you have - - do you agree that the responsibilities that were placed upon PRE included the preparation of school improvement plans for a large number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as a part of the school improvement effort? Do you disagree with that? A I disagree with the terminology . Q But do you disagree with the substance of it , whatever the terms used? A Q A We did do some additional surveys . The question is : Do you disagree? That ' s all . I don ' t agree with the way the statement is written . I mean, there are some truths and non-truths in there , I think . Q Now , going back to your water hose analysis , with a small water hose you can only account for so many students , is that fair to say? A It had nothing to do with -- the analogy had nothing to do with that . It had to do with speed . Q Well , I understand . But the speed relates to students and it relates to student data\ndoesn ' t it? A With modern computers and dealing with that kind of binary BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 data or that kind of data , the numbers -- in other words , to transport 2 million pieces of data is milli , milli , milliseconds compared to hours . There ' s a blink of an eye to transfer a million versus a hundred thousand . Q Well , why was it so important for you all to spend -- if your data system was adequate , why was it so necessary for Dr . Roberts and the others to try to implement this new data system? BY MR . FINLEY : I 'm going to object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can still answer . A When I 'm talking about speed , I 'm talking about the speed I can get from the IRC . It ' s called a pipeline . Now , if I worked downtown , there I could get the data just as quickly but - - in other words , if I worked downtown and we didn ' t have the pipeline -- well , actually , the AS400 now is out at Metro. worked at Metro , I could get the data because that ' s where~:.~ AS400 is . Q Well , why is there such a controversy about which data source to use? BY MR . FINLEY : What do you mean by data source? BY MR . WALKER : If he can answer the question , that means he -BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 j 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 I think he means Tetra - Data via Business Objects . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer . A The district has had a long standing relationship with Business Objects . We ' ve used Crystal Reports for a number of years , since 1992 . When I came on in '98 , within a few years there was a discussion about doing some kind of data warehouse and we talked with -- most of our discussions dealt with NCS , that ' s who makes the AS400 . There were then discussions aoc, doing a data warehouse , prior to 2004 when Dr . Karen DeJarnette was hired as director of PRE . One of the ideas that she brought in or one of the concepts she brought in was to fully implement a data warehouse . The idea to implement a data warehouse in its current state is Dr . DeJarnette ' s idea . Q Do you disagree with it? A No . Q Do you find utility in it? A Yes . Q Do you support it? A Yes . Q Is it necessary and important? A It ' s necessary and important in that it makes my job mu ch quicker . It ' s not necessary -- I mean , we can get the data if we want to wait for it by using a radar request through our information services department . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Q You are aware that a number of errors showed up in some data being submitted to the outside evaluators\nis that fair to say? A Q I 'm not clear what you ' re talking about . Do you recall taking responsibility for passing on faulty data to the evaluators? A Q A I 'm not aware of any faulty data that I passed on . That ' s fine . All the data that I passed on was approved by Dr . Karen DeJarnette . Q So if she says otherwise , y ' all have a difference of opinion? A When we did the data cleanup for the Benchmark data , I sent her the data cleanup files and asked her permission to send the data cleanup files in . That was our last chance to clea~ - data . She gave me her permission to send those cleanup data files in . So when the data files are available , yes , they had her permission . They had her approval that they could be sent on to the evaluators . Q Did you previously send data to the evaluators? A Yes . One of my roles was to do that . Q Now , had you sent data that had not been cleaned up to the evaluators? A All the data we sent to the evaluators , we made what we felt was a reasonable attempt to make sure that it was clean a nci BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 appropriate data . Q When you say we are you talking about you and somebody else or are you talking about yourself? A Well , no , Mr . Wooleb was involved in some of the databases that were sent out . Q Isn ' t it fair to say that on one occasion you were so busy that when some data came in that you , without checking it, forwarded it on to the evaluators? A I don ' t I 'm not saying it didn ' t happen but I don ' t recall . I don ' t recall that occurring. Q Is it fair to say that you have a reputation for being careless with your work? A No one has ever said that to me , no . Q What is the process for providing data to the evaluators? A The protocol for that begins with discussions with the, in the case , with the external evaluators to determine the types of data that they need to complete the program evaluation. Da~ a , based on those discussions and those agreements , as that data became available then it was sent to the external evaluators . Q As it became available to you? A Q Yes . Available to the PRE Department , yes . Did you share that data with Dr . DeJarnette at that point when it became available to you or did you send it on directly , yourself , to the outside evaluators? A If I recall , all the databases that I sent to the outside BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evaluators were also sent to Dr . DeJarnette . Q You recall that? But you sent them to the outside evaluators before clearing it with her\ndid you not? A No . If we ' re talking about the data that was cleaned up the last cleanup I asked her if it was appropriate to send in the cleanup data files , which would signify that that was the last opportunity to clean the data and she gave that approval . Yes , she approved - - when the data was available , she had already given her approval that the data was cleaned so I sent it off . Q A Q Have you ever spoken personally with Dr . Catterall? Yes , I have . Have you ever met with Dr . Catterall personally? A Yes , I have . Q Has he expressed an opinion about whether the evaluation process has been embedded? 53 A I don ' t recall that part of the discussion that I had with him . Q A Have you ever had such a conversation with Dr . Ross? No , not that I recall. Q How do you know that PRE notified ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight programs selected for evaluation? How do you know that? A As I recall , I think that was a team meeting with Dr. DeJarnette. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 Q Were you present in that meeting? A Yes . I mean, I think in general she just made a comment like , yeah , we made the choices now and make sure you notify the proper people . Q Did you participate in making those choices? A In making the choices? Q Yes . A I offered feedback on -- yes . Q Did you participate in making the choices? Feedback is different from being involved in the decision- making\nisn ' t it? A No . Q All right . What else will you tell the court when you testify as the district ' s expert witness? A Well , if asked to , I will describe in as much detail as I can recollect I will describe in detail with our compliance with the court ' s remedy. Q All right . Tell me what else you have done to comply with the court ' s remedy than what you ' ve already set forth that any member of the team can explain as well as you , as you said earlier . Did you not say that? A Yeah . I mean Q What else can you say? A What else can I say that the other team members can? Since they were privy to -- at least the other two team members were privy -- I 'm talking about Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson -- they BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 were privy to the same information in terms of team meetings and the whole process . There would be an expectation that they could also describe to the court our process in complying with that remedy . Q I want you to go ahead and tell me the rest of what you will say in court . What else will you say about complying with the remedy? A Okay . I ' ll talk about revitalizing the PRE Department . We'll talk about choosing the year one and year two Step II Program evaluations . We ' ll talk about the process of how those evaluations were conducted and our interaction with the exterior evaluators . We ' ll talk about the comprehensive program assessment process was developed and institutionalized, deeply embedded by the school board ' s actions. We ' ll talk about our quarterly reports to the board . We ' ll talk about making sure that ODM and Joshua were properly notified per the remedy . Q Will you talk about the fact that the testing coordinator position was left open for approximately a year? A I don ' t think it was -- was it that long? Q Let ' s say six months . A If asked , yeah . Q I see . Was that testing coordinator position importanL L~ the work of the PRE? A Q Yes . Would six months hiatus in having that position unfilled BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affect the work of PRE , in your opinion? A Given the timing of the six month hiatus , continuous , it was -- no . It wouldn ' t affect the work of PRE? Not when that position was vacant , no . it wasn ' t Q A Q I see . There was a period when a Mr . Olds was hired as a replacement for the testing coordinator\nisn ' t that correct? A Yes . 56 Q Do you agree or disagree that he resigned after about three months on the job? A Q I disagree . That ' s fine . Do you disagree that as of October of last year -- as of September of last year , the testing coordinator position had not been filled? A I agree . Q A Q A Do you disagree that that was important to the process? That there was no one there in September? Yes . No , it didn ' t impede the process , the assessment process . Q Now , is there a vacant position now for a statistician? A I wouldn ' t call it vacant . They have applied for an additional statistician , yes . Q A Q I see . How many statisticians are there right now? There are three . You and who else? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson . Q I see . Who made the decision to ask for a fourth one? A I 'm uncertain . When the announcement was posted , I asked Dr . Roberts and she informed me it was an additional statistician . Q Who made the decision that it was necessary? I don ' t know . Is it , in your opinion , necessary? I think it would be extremely helpful , yes . Would it have been an extremely helpful a year ago? 57 A Q A Q A No . The department was capable -- given the frame up that we were under a year ago , we had adequate staff . Q What changed it then to make it more helpful now than a year ago? A Well , the fact that we are picking up -- we are doing the modified assessments of the year one and then we will be doing the year two and then , of course , the deeply embedded process . Q So you need more staff to deeply embed something? A Q A Q No . You don ' t? We need more staff to implement that . Well , isn ' t deeply embedding also involved with implementation? A Deeply embedding is the institutionalization of a process or initiative . That is different than implementation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you know anything about how the process of the evaluations will be conducted in the future? A Yes , I do . Q What will happen in the future? A We will follow the comprehensive program assessment process . Q Will you continue to use outside evaluators? A I f that is an option , yes . Q Well , wait a minute . What is your understanding of what will happen? Will you be using outside evaluators or will you be using inside evaluators? A If you read the comprehensive program assessment process, 58 the role of the external evaluator is determined by the team so the role could be anywhere from a technical writer to actually completely the evaluations , like was done with Steve Ross and James Catterall . It depends on the evaluation team . That ' s a decision by the team to make . So, yes , it could run the whole continuum of being advisor to doing the whole process . there ' s seven or eight in the IR-L . I think Q Well , if there is a present need for another statistician , would not there have been a need six months ago for another statistician? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q You can answer . A Given the way the court remedy was where we -- the decision about the role of the external evaluator was decided by the court that , no , we had adequate staff to complete the court compliance remedy . Q You had adequate staff then so what happened in the intervening six months to make you not have adequate staff to complete it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q What has changed in that six month period? That would be between September and now , August and now . A Well , we just recently have completed the last program evaluation done by an external evaluator and , as we had said in both quarterly seven and eight , that we will continue on with modified , feasible and ongoing assessments of those eight program evaluations . That has changed. That is a major change . We ' re taking on that role that we didn't have in the past. Q Has ODM staff expressed to you a view that there is a problem with compliance in embedding program assessments into the curriculum and instructional programs of the district as contemplated by the court? A I don't recall either one of the individuals saying that to me. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Do you know whether they ' ve said that to Dr . DeJarnette? No . I was not privy to that conversation . Tell me what Mr . Gene Jones has said to you about ODM ' s observations regarding program evaluation . 60 A The only thing I recall was it was an off - the - cuff comment about how we should be able to get out of court this time . Q When did he say that? A In the hallway . We were walking to a meeting , I think . Q You and who? You and Mr . Jones? A Gene was behind me . I think we were in a meeting with our departmental team and the meeting was finished and we were walking out and he made that comment . Q Who else was present? A Q A I think Karen DeJarnette , Mr . Wooleb , Maurecia Robinson . What did Dr . DeJarnette say? I don ' t recall . Q Have you met with Mr . Gene Jones as team outside the presence of Joshua regarding compliance? A Q Yes , I believe so . When did you do so? A I don ' t know the exact date . I think that day was one of them . Q What month was that? Approximately what time period was it? A It was probably in the spring of this year . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q The spring of Yeah . I 'm sorry . Spring of 2006 . Are you are that Dr . DeJarnette , upon learning that an extension of time was necessary to file certain reports , made contact with Mr . Heller regarding that? 61 A Yes , I believe that there was conversation with Mr. Heller about the fact that we probably, because the fact the data wasn ' t going to be here in time , that we possibly needed to file for an extension. Q A Q A Q A I see . Do you know what Mr . Heller ' s reaction to that was? He filed an extension . He did? That ' s my understanding . Did he promptly do so? I couldn ' t tell you when it was . timely manner . I mean , he did it in a Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about Dr. DeJarnette ' s leadership of PRE? A Dr . DeJarnette brought in two good ideas : the data warehouse and the portfolio, and she had knowledge in working with the people that developed those and I thought those would be very helpful in supporting the infrastructure of our comprehensive program assessment process . Q What's the most positive thing you can say about her administration of the department? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 A She assessed the individual qualities of each of the people in the department and delegated work to those people based on those assessments . Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about her evaluation of the staff of the PRE? A I ' ve been evaluated once . I mean , I don ' t understand that question . Q That ' s fine . A Q A She evaluated us , yeah . Did you object to her evaluation of you? No . Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette ' s administration of the PRE Department? A I ' ve never framed my relationship with Dr. DeJarnette in that manner . Q So you can ' t say anything negative about her administration of the department? A About her administration of - - Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about her qualifications? A I read her vitae . She ' s qualified to be the director . Q What is the most negative thing yo can say about her administration of the PRE Department? A Q I just never framed my relationship with her in that way . What's the most negative thing you can say about Dr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DeJarnette in any way? A You ' re asking for a personal opinion there . Q Yes , sir , I am . That ' s the only opinion you can give because there is not district position on that\nis there? So what is your opinion? A I ' ve never really formed an opinion of Dr . DeJarnette . Q Well , form one now . What is your most negative opinion regarding her that you may be called upon to give in front of the court . A I guess on two occasions she said she was going to do something or she said she wasn ' t going to do something and I think it was two occasions that she didn ' t. Q What were those two occasions and what did she do? A She wasn ' t going to send the e-mail of the compliance 63 history report to the board . She told me that flat out and she did it . The other thing was something similar to that . Q When did she tell you that? A I thinks he told me on a Wednesday or a Thursday and sent it out on Friday . Q Do you know what intervened between the time you had the conversation and that Friday? A No . Q Did she tell you why she wasn ' t going to send an e-mail to the board? A I 'm sorry? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What was the reason that she told you that she would not send the e - mail to the board? A She had asked my opinion and I told her that I thought it was a carthetic event and that she shouldn ' t send it and she agreed with me on that . Q What was it that she was sending? A Pardon me? Q What was it that she ultimately sent to the board? mail was that? A It was an Adobe file . It was three pages long and it talked about -- I think it was titled History of Compliance or something like that . Q A Q Is this the document? Yeah . I think that is it , yeah . It looks like it is . I want you to go through this compliance history and tell me what - - first of all , had this compliance history been compiled by PRE? A No . Q Who compiled this? 64 A It was my understanding that it was compiled by Mr . Wooleb and Dr . DeJarnette . Q A Did you disagree with it? Yes. Q Did you disagree with the contents of it or did you disagree with the wisdom of sharing it? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Both . Q I see . I want you to go through this and bring my attention to the ones that you disagreed with , starting with Page 1 . BY MR . WALKER : We ' ll attach this as an exhibit . (Exhibit 1 marked for identification) BY MR . WALKER : Go ahead when you ' re ready . 65 Q A Okay . la . Dr . DeJarnette was on the committee that worked on the reorganization and it was her decision to do away with the secretary and the two people that were eliminated . Q Who told you that it was her decision? A She did . Q She told you it was her decision? A Q A Q A Q A Q She was on the committee and she wanted it done . She wanted it done? That ' s fine . Did she telt you that? I recollect her saying that , yeah . Okay . Go ahead . What else? lb , inadequate staff . That's on Pagel? Yes . lb . All right . That ' s fine . A That is not my understanding of whac happened with Mr5 Dillingham . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 Q Okay . What else? A 2a . We do have a policy for managing data that begins when students register with the school district . There ' s a policy for registration . 2b is spurious . There ' s no evidence there to indicate -- where ' s the evidence that we have any data errors? Q What else? A C is -- why didn ' t Karen check and correct any old dac~ : Q When you had this conversation with Dr . DeJarnette , was it just the two of you or was Mr . Wooleb present when she said she wouldn ' t send it to the board? A I don ' t know who all was present . Mr . Wooleb may have been present . Q I see . So it becomes a question of recollection\ndoesn ' t it? Your recollection versus hers and his? A Yes , obviously . Most of this is . Q All right . Go ahead . We ' re on Page 2 now , number three . And you ' re telling me what you disagree with as a fact in her compliance history . A 3a , I 'm not aware of LRSD rejecting our plans to implement the data warehouse . at the end of July . In fact , the data warehouse was implemented Q Go ahead . What ' s next? A 3b. Data is data . Crystal Reports -- actually, Business Objects is actually used by school districts around the nation . In fact , I talked to one . I think it ' s Norfolk , Virginia that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses Business Objects , same as we do . 67 3e, it ' s my understanding in talking with Richie Robinson , because she attended a meeting on those surveys , when she ' s talking about the surveys for Education for the Future , there is no validity or reliability on those surveys . 3f , I am not aware of any attempt by the Little Rock School District to oppose the project of doing wellness priority in the annual ACSIP plans . 4a , Dr . DeJarnette early on routinely asked Counsel Heller to review the updates and to make changes as necessary so any changes made on the 8th quarterly were just an extension of other changes that were made in other quarterly reports . Q Were you present when she asked Counsel Heller those things? A Q A I saw e-mails . Are those e - mails the best evidence of your recollection? Uh huh . Q All right. A I 'm not aware that the board did not receive copies of the draft of the 8th quarterly . In fact , 4c actually says that , PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the board for its review . Q A Let me just run through this . Do you disagree with~ ~~ You got to let me read it. Given that I did not ha ve ~ . conversations with Joshua , other than within the team meetings, I can't address the fact that there ever was a chill or the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 chill went away or whatever it was . My only interaction with Joshua was in team meetings and then passing in the hall and saying hello . I did not experience any lessening of responsiveness from LRSD ' s counsel . I disagree with b . I don ' t think it was at odds with the remedy . LRSD - - okay -- Sc . L?SD Q A Do you disagree with it? I don ' t disagree with it but they ' re not part of the evaluation teams , Joshua and ODM are not part of the evaluation team . Q A Q It doesn ' t say that . C doesn ' t say that\ndoes it? I 'm just clarifying my answer . I understand that . I 'm asking if you disagree with it and it simply says LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions of which PRE notified Joshua , ODM , LRSD and its counsel . Do you disagree with that? A Joshua attended few -- I told you they only attended 30 percent of the year ones . It improved in year two . Where is the data to support that? Q We ' re just asking what you disagreed with . You understand this came from the compliance history that was submitted in the draft report . Now , obviously you ' re at odds with the people who prepared the compliance history\naren't you? BY MR . HELLER : I 'm going to object to the form of that question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me put it another way so there won ' t be -BY MR . HELLER : My only point is , what draft? This wasn ' t part of the compliance history in any draft report . BY MR . WALKER : Q Well , let me ask you : Did you participate in developing this compliance history? No , I did not . Okay . Did she share it with you? A Q A Yes , she did . We had a discussion and she agreed with me that it was a carthetic event . Q Did she use the term carthetic? A I said that and she agreed with me . Q I see . Is that a term you normally use , Dr . Williams? A I am a licensed professional counselor . Q I understand but is that a term you normally use in your every day conversations? Yeah . Carthesis is term that I use very appropriate. 69 A Q I see . Let ' s go back . You also applied for this position that she got and you were upset when you didn ' t get it\nis 1.  that correct? A Q No . That ' s fine . Now , you ' ve got a pay increase coming as a result of taking over the interim position\ndon't you? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I was notified on -Yesterday? -- yeah --that would probably occur , yeah . Q You were also notified that you could expect to be the director as of yesterday , weren ' t you? A No . 70 Q I see . Are you disappointed that you won ' t be the director now? A Q A Q her? A Q A No. Do you think you can work with Dr. DeJarnette? Yes . Even though you ' re saying all these negative things about These are not negative things about her . I see . Let ' s go on . As I stated , this is a carthetic letter , something that you write because of the feelings you are experiencing at the time . Typically, it has a very therapeutic -- typically , it would have a very therapeutic benefit to it . Q Are you a psychologist? A No , I'm not . Q That ' s just an opinion\nisn't it? A No . I ' m a licensed professional counselor. Psychotherapist. Q Are you trying to give a psychotherapist's opinion to her BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537~5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 regarding her conduct? A No . I am not her psychotherapist . Q Do you agree that the relations between -- this is Number 7 A Q A Q A Q LRSD and the PRE ' s director deteriorated? Where are we? Number 7 . Do you agree with that? My experience Yes or no . I don ' t agree with that . No , I don ' t . I understand . Do you know if she was threatened with dismissal by the superintendent? Can you answer that? A I never heard the superintendent threaten her with dismissal . Q A Q Were you present at any cabinet meetings? Have I been to any cabinet meetings? Were you present in any cabinet meetings where she was present? A No . Q A I see . Well, one . There was one cabinet meeting I was pr':::'3.,': when she was present . Q Do you disagree that LRSD counsel was unresponsive and evasive to her? A Q I disagree with that . Okay . Was LRSD counsel responsive and unevasive to you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you had contact with them? A The very , very few times that I responded to Mr . Heller, was responsive to me . Q Do you know whether she engaged her own law firm to give her advice? A She said she had engaged an attorney , yes . Q Are you aware that she filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resource Department? A Yes , Karen told us that she filed a grievance . 72 ,__ - !.i.C:: Q Do you disagree with her recommendation that it ' s important that first of all , for restoration of administrative support , in addition to test coordinators based upon a review of responsibilities , requires an administrative assistant? A Q A It ' s my understanding from what she told me -Do you disagree? That was her decision to eliminate the administrative assistant ' s job so -- Q A Q She told you that? Yes . I see . Was anybody -- oh , you said you don ' t -- that was just one-on-one between you and her? A I believe there were other people present , Mr. Wooleb and Ms . Robinson and then the committee members . Q So basically , you didn't agree with this compliance history that was prepared by her and Mr . Wooleb? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A In general , no , I did not agree wi~h it , no . I see . Now , did you prepare your own compliance history? No , I did not . 73 Q Have you prepared any writing to aid her in addressing the difficulties that she was obviously experiencing with the administration and/or Mr . Heller? A She didn ' t ask me to write anything and I didn ' t really experience -- Q Did you offer any advice to her regarding those matters? A Q A Yes . What advice did you offer to her? When we read the original the compliance report , we felt that there were some inaccuracies , possible inaccuracies in that compliance report that Attorney Heller had written . My advice was to write a very terse and direct e-mail to Mr . Heller explaining our concerns . She did that . She got an immediate reply from Mr . Heller . Q I see . So you ' re basically saying that you wouldn ' t have taken the actions that she took if you were the director A What I 'm saying is that I did not experience - - Q Please , listen to my question. Are you saying that you , based on what you know , would not have taken the actions or made the comments that she made had you been the director of the PRE Department? BY MR . FINLEY : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What actions and comments are we talking about? Would he have drafted the compliance history? BY MR . WALKER : 74 Yes . Thank you , Mr . Finley , you ' ve been helpful . BY THE WITNESS : I was not the director and I am not a fortune teller . I have no idea how I would have responded as director . I do have extensive management experience but I 'm not sure how I would have performed in the last two years . BY MR . WALKER : Q All right . Do you know whether LRSD had a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? A The Compass Learning Program generates results in data and that data -- Q My question -- I 'm not asking you to explain . Do you know it ' s simple -- do you know whether LRSD has a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? Do you know? A I don ' t know if they ' re using the data though . Q All right . Do you know whether the school administration has kept Joshua and ODM timely informed of the activities of PRE? Do you know? A Yes , via the quarterly reports . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Only by the quarterly reports? Is it your position that the only information Joshua was to get was in the quarterly reports? A Oh , no . Q I see . A You asked me how they were informed . Q All right . Now , is it your understanding that Joshua was supposed to be provided the same information as ODM? A It says right in here that as things evolve and as things are produced that we are to notify ODM and Joshua as those things evolve . Q Now , what information in PRE did you all have that can be said to be privileged and not shared with Joshua? What public information was it that you all generated that was not to be shared with Joshua? A I can ' t think of anything off- hand that would be public information that we wouldn ' t share with Joshua because it ' s public . Q Let me ask you this then : What is the harm in Joshua talking to you or Dr . DeJarnette regarding this information? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : You can still answer . 75 Q A In an evaluation team meeting it would be appropriate since BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you were an invited guest . Q Wait a minute . What about one - on- one? Let me put it another way . Let ' s assume somebody is just a patron , Walter Hussman , for instance , and he comes and asks you what is going on with respect to PRE , can you tell him? 76 A I would , first of all , Walter Hussman has never done that . Q Well , let ' s assume it ' s Walter Hussman . If he did that , would you tell him what he asked? It being public information? A If it ' s public information , yeah , I would discuss it with him . Q I see. Well , why would you tell Walter Hussman and not John Walker? A It was my inLerpretation that the attorneys representing Joshua are adversarial . Q That ' s right . BY MR . WALKER : I have no more questions . Thank you . CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Referring to Exhibit 1 , Paragraph 3g , do you disagree with that statement? A Yes. LRSD has not impeded compliance with embedding assessment . Q That ' s your position? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I  1 2 = 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 Q Okay . I want to look at Paragraph Sc of the same document where Dr . DeJarnette reported that LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions . Who is LRSD? A It ' s about 4 , 000 employees . Q Okay . Well , of those 4 , 000 employees , were there several of them at every single evaluation session? A Yes . Q So it ' s true that LRSD attended every evaluation session? A Yes , if LRSD is defined as all the employees , yes . Q Do you understand that PRE is a separate entity outside of LRSD? A No . BY MR . HELLER : That ' s all I have . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 1 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 78 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested~ or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELLY ,IS . '11.DCOCK Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04/15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1224","title":"Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1224"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["90 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF OLIVINE ROBERTS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoi . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ft~CEIVED IAN 1 9 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAllOH MONllORlHG APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P. RICHARDSON ASS I STANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr. Walker .. ... . ..... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . Examination by Mr . Heller .... ..... . . .. .. . .. . .... .... . Further examination by Mr . Walker . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . Deposition concluded . .... . ... . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 85 86 90 91 3 4 OLIVINE ROBERTS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 2 p .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above - entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 -I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Q Olivine Roberts . Dr . Roberts , where did you get your doctorate degree? A University of Central Florida . Q Do you recall your dissertation? A Yes . Relationship Between Student Learning and , I think , Leadership at the High School Level , something to that effect . It was instructional leadership . The correlation between instructional leadership and the principalship at the secondary level . Q Where did you attend college? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q University of Central Florida . Where did you attend graduate school? University of Central Florida . All if it was at the same institution? Yes . Were you a cum laude graduate or above at college? For my masters and doctorate , yes\nundergrad , no. I see. When did you first meet Dr . Brooks? 2000 , if I 'm not mistaken . And where were you working at that time? For the Orange County Public School System. What was your job? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 5 I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 A At that time , I was the math coordinator supervisor for the district , math/science . Q Were you an area coordinator or were you city- wide coordinator? A This was for the ent i re district at the time . Q A Q A Q Was that elementary or secondary? K- 12 . Now , a coordinator is not like a director normally? No , not here -- it would not be aligned to that , no . I see . So that was a mid- level management position , would you say? A I would not say it was management . It was more a support position . Q Support . Okay . Did you report to a person with a higher sounding title? A Q A Q I reported to -- yes , the director of curriculum . Did the director of curriculum report to somebody? The associate superintendent for curriculum . Okay . Did you ever hold a position higher than coordinator when you were in Florida? A Yes . I was the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction for the south learning community. Q A Q That ' s an area? Yes . All right . So you moved from coordinator to another BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 position above that? A Yes . Q Still below director of curriculum? A Yes . I reported directly to the director . Q So you were not a senior administrator when you came here? A I was a senior administrator for Orange County , yes . In terms of a senior administrator at the cabinet level? Is that what you ' re asking me? Q Yes , that ' s what I mean . A No . Q I see . So you ' ve never been in a cabinet position before you came here? A No . Q I see . How long had you been an administrator when you came here? A Four years , going on five . Q So you ' re more or less a novice? A I would not say that , no. Q All right . In the field of education , to me -- 7 A In the field of education, one to three years is considered novice. Q I see . Have you written any books or anything? A No , I ' ve not written any books, no . Q Have you published any articles in any learning journals? A No , I ' ve not published any , no . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I I I Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Have you been a co- author of anything anywhere subsequent to your dissertation ? A That was published, no . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I see . Have you conducted any studies on any subject? Yes . Are those studies reported anywhere ? University of Central Florida has copies of them . All right . So that ' s part of your dissertation? And my thesis . And your masters thesis? Yes . I see . What was your thesis? The Integration of Math and Science Curriculum . That ' s pretty general . For what purpose? To increase student learning . But that wasn ' t part of the title? No . It was to integrate the mathematics and science curriculum . At the time , integration was the focus . Q What integration are we talking about? School desegregation -- A Q A Q A No , the integration of the math and science curriculum. Meaning , both of them together and -- Yes . How do you teach them together . --causing them to be taught together? Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q All right . BY MR . FINLEY : Teach them to get along . BY MR . WALTER : Teach those two subjects to get along . pretty good , Mr . Fi nley . BY MR . WALKER : Q Al l right. Have you ever taught school? Yes . Where at? Conway Middle School . I s that in Orange County Yes , it is . Seminole Community College . What did you teach at the community college? Intermediate algebra . So you ' re really a math teacher? That is my area of discipline , yes . That ' s A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q I see . Have you ever -- is the Seminole Community College a majority white community college? A I would say yes . I don ' t know the demographics of the college . Q A But the staff was mostly white\nwasn ' t it? I was an adjunct . I worked at night so I have no idea . Q And the school where you taught , was it majority white or black? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Majority white . I see . So you ' ve never taught in a majority black school system before , have you? A Orange County is not a majority black system so , no . Q I see . What is your experience for dealing with 10 remediating educational disparities between African-American and white children? A Since the achievement gap is a national phenomena , we have the same phenomena in Orange County. Q No . What is your experience is my question . What is your experience in dealing with remediation of achievement disparities between African-American and white students? A In my role as the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction and also my role in supporting the mathematics curriculum, it was my charge to increase the student learning , at that time, within the district for African-American as well as Caucasian students . Q I see . It was sort of like Mr. Heller suggests, you want to improve the education of all students? A Isn ' t that why we ' re in education? Q For all students? A Isn't that why we ' re in education? Q No. No . No. We're not debating . So your emphasis was upon increasing the educational achievement of all students? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . It wasn't focused on remediating achievement disparities that were pre-existing between black and white students? Is that fair to say? A It is fair to say that , for those students who had deficiencies , one of my responsibilities was to identify interventions that would bridge those deficiencies . Q I see . Are you aware of any school district that has effectively dealt with narrowing the achievement gap between African-American and white students? A Q Yes . Would you name some of them? 11 A Brazosport , Texas\nAldine , Texas\nI want to say Charlotte- Mecklenburg . These are the ones that I ' ve studied. Q A Q A Q A Have you read the Swann Decision? Pardon? Have you read the Swann Decision? No , I've not read the Swann Decision . You ' re not familiar with Swann versus Charlotte Mecklenburg? No . Q And it ' s your position that Charlotte had materially narrowed the achievement gap between black and white students? A There was some evidence indicating that they were on the road to closing that gap, yes , based on the articles that I've read . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Are you talking about newspaper articles? No , sir . I 'm talking about journal articles . Tell me which journals you are referring to . A I would have to go back and research . I can ' t recall the 12 publication of the articles . These were a few years back when I was doing my dissertation so , if I may come back and respond to that . I do know that Brazosport , Texas has closed the -continues to narrow , I should say , not close , the achievement gap . Q Is it your position that Brazosport is a majority African- American school district? A I think there are some African-American students as well as Hispanic students . Q A Q it? A It ' s majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? But they ' re -- Just my question. Brazosport is majority Hispanic\nisn ' t Yes , it is . Q All right . And this other Texas place is also majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes, it is . Do you know any place that you have studied or received information on , other than the three that you have mentioned , where the achievement gap between African- American students and white students has been addressed effectively? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 A The 90 - 90 - 90 study that was conducted by Doug Reeves identified schools , not necessarily districts . Q I 'm dealing with districts now . I ' ll just ask you to tell me the districts , any district . A I do not know the district at the moment . Q All right . Now , you can ' t say that there are no districts that have dealt with this\ncan you? A Repeat your question , please . Q You cannot say that there are no districts that have effectively dealt with addressing the achievement gap between African- American and white students\ncan you? A I cannot say that there are no districts that have not dealt with it . Q I see . Are you aware that at one time Little Rock made material gains in addressing the achievement gap between white and black students? A Q Please define that. The gap was being narrowed considerably during the time Mr. Paul Mason was here. Were you aware of that? A Was that before NCLB? Q A Q A Q National Conference of Black Administrators? What is NCLB? No Child Left Behind . No Child . Okay. That ' s Mr . Bush ' s initiative? Yes , it is . This was before then, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 A Okay . So therefore , the standards movement was not in affect then . Q Well , how can you say that? A Because standards did not become a national initiative unti l then . Each s tate did not have set standards across the - country . Q Did somebody tell you that? A Pardon? Q A Q A Q A Di d someone tell you that? If you do the research - - What is your research source? Pardon? What is your research source for that conclusion? If you look at the standards Q I 'm asking for your research source for the conclusion you just uttered . A In 1983 , after a Nation at Risk was published , that ' s when that became the , I would say , the catalyst for the standards movement . The NCTM , National Standards , were not published until 1989 and states did not start adopting those standards until about , I want to say , '99 , 2000 . Q That ' s your opinion . A No , those are facts . Q You don ' t know really much about the history of the educational achievement or lack of achievement in the Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Rock School District\ndo you? A Before Q Before you came here . A I have looked at the data . I have studied the data and , yes , there were some spikes but , again , when you look at the NCLB , and that is critical -- when the Arkansas Department of Education changed the testing tool that was being used , we then saw a decline . When they went from the SAT 9 to the ITBS to the Benchmark , there was a very drastic decline . Q A Q A Q Decline in what? In student achievement . Whose achievement? Black or white? Both African- American students and Caucasian students . Well , there couldn ' t be a real decline . It ' s a decline in the way it ' s measured on a particular test\nisn ' t it? The achievement is the achievement . It ' s just a question of who measures it and how\nisn ' t it? A The achievement should also parallel and we saw , again , between ITBS , SAT 9 and the Benchmark assessment that there was a drastic dip when the Benchmark was first administered, in relation to the SAT 9 . Q I see . Let me go back . You don ' t hold yourself out as an expert on remediating the achievement gap between black and white students\ndo you? A I see myself as an expert in student learning . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s yes or no . I see myself as an expert -- Please answer my question . Do you hold yourself out - BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s not required to answer your questions yes or no . BY MR . WALKER : Q Yes or no . Do you hold yourself out as an expert on 16 remediating achievement disparities between Afri can- American and white students? I 'm not aski ng how you see yourself . Do you hold yourself out as having an expertise -- A I hold myself as an expert in address i ng the deficiencies of students having difficulty learning . Q I see . Now , have you read all the court decisions in the Little Rock case? A I have read some of them . Q Can you tell me the ones you ' ve read? A I ' ve read the remedy that was issued in 2002 -- was it 2002? The one that -- 2004 . I read the last court -- the one where Bonnie Leslie and -- I forgot the lady ' s name that was over PRE at the time . I read some of those transcripts . Q You read the transcripts or the decisions? A Q A I read some of the transcripts and the decisions . How do you define transcript? What the person testified to that was recorded . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 q 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 Q So you read Dr . Leslie ' s testimony? A Yes . Q I see . Were you -- did you form an opinion as to whether or not much of the information presented by Dr . Leslie was based upon fabricated information? A No , I did not form an opinion . Q Let me ask you : What was your last salary in Orange County? A Approximately , $68 , 000 . Q And what was your first salary here? A I want to say 1-05 . Q That ' s a big jump . $40 , 000 . Did you know Dr . Brooks in Florida? A Yes , I did . Q What was your relationship with Dr . Brooks while you were in Florida? A He was my supervisor . Q I see . So you reported to him? A He was the area superintendent . Q That ' s yes or no . A I did not report directly to him , no . Q How many levels removed from him were you in the administration? A Three . Q So that meant that you were five from the senior administrative level of the school district? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No , I was four . It was the associate superintendent , the executive director and then myself . Three . I 'm sorry . Q Did they have area superintendent A Q A Q A Q from The executive director . Was he an area superintendent? Yes , he was . I see . Were there assistant superintendents? No . All right . That ' s fine . So you were four levels removed A No , I was three . Again , it was the area superintendent , 18 the executive director who reported to the area superintendent , and I reported to the executive director . I was the third person . Q A Q And Mr . Brooks reported to whom? The superintendent . So that meant you were at the fourth level of administration? A Q Okay . If you want to view it that way . Now , did you apply for the job here or were you pre-selected? A I had to apply . I went through an interviewing process . Q I understand you did but he told you he wanted you and asked you to apply\ndidn ' t he? A He asked me if I would think about applying for the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 position , yes . Q I see . Now , can you tell me the worst thing that you can say about Dr . DeJarnette as a professional? A I do not speak negatively about my colleagues or people who report to me . Q Well , you have to evaluate them so , in terms of the evaluation process , what is the worst thing you can say about her in terms of her qualifications? What ' s the worst thing you can say? A The evaluations that have been done in the past have been moderately good . Q A No , I 'm not Again , I will not say anything negative about anyone . Q Doctor , you have to answer my questions . In terms of her qualifications , what qualifications does she lack in order to perform or fulfill the responsibilities that she was assigned to fulfill? A Based on her evaluation Q Qualifications . A Apparently , she was qualified because she was granted ti1~ position . Q Well , that ' s apparently . I 'm asking you . A I sat on the interviewing team . I was a member of the team so , therefore , she met the qualifications outlined in the job description and -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Does she still meet the qualifications? Yes , she does . 20 Q A Q Now , have her qualifications been enhanced in the last two years or diminished? A Q They ' ve remained the same . Isn ' t it true that by being on the job for two years that they had to have increased? A Not necessarily . Q I see . In your opinion , have they been enhanced in the last two years , her qualifications? A I would say that the experiences that she has had may have expanded her qualifications . That ' s yet to see . Q Have yours been expanded in the last two years? A I can speak for me . Yes . Q A I see . So you ' re just guessing for her? Well , I ' d need to talk with her and find out . Q Now , what is the worst thing that you can say about her administration of PRE? The most negative thing . I ' ll put it that way . What is the most negative thing you can say about her? A Again , based on her evaluations , I do not -- it ' s not a habit I have of criticizing the people who report to me . Q Well , this is a court proceeding and I will ask you this question there so what is the most negative thing that you can say about her qualifications at this time? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 q 8 9 II 10 11 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s answered your question . She said she ' s not going to say anything negative about her . BY MR . WALKER : I heard what she said and that ' s a coaching objection . I 'm asking -- BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to ask her another question , ask her another question . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Just a moment , Mr . Finley. Are you directing you either direct her not to answer or -- BY MR . FINLEY : You can keep asking the same question . I 'm telling her she can keep giving you the same answer . BY MR . WALKER : Well , you ' re coaching her . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 BY MR . FINLEY : No , I 'm not . BY MR . WALKER : Q Was she a satisfactory administrator before she was terminated , recommended for termination? A Based on her evaluation , yes . Q Based upon your appraisal of her work . In the intervening time between her evaluat i on and the time she was walked out of PRE , was she a satisfactory employee? A No . Q All right . Now , what was it that made her unsatisfactory? A She did not comply with the chain of command . Q What else? A She was insubordinate . Q What else. A And she superceded authority . Q What else? A She lied . Q What else? What else? A I think that will suffice for now . Q I don ' t want you to suffice for now because there is a later . If you say for now , that means you can come back later . I want it all now . What else can you say? A That is it. Q That is it . All right . Now , first of all, what did she BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lie about and when did she lie? I 'm sure there are several things so tell me what those lies were . A One , when she said that Yvette Dillingham was asked to accept an 11 month -- it was her -- let me get my thoughts together . Q This ought to be pretty clear . Didn ' t you just give testimony last night regarding this same subject? A That was a closed hearing. 23 Q Well , we ' re entitled to your testimony from there as well . So didn ' t you just give testimony there? A I did not testify to this last night . Q But you were prepared for that testimony , at least by Mr . Heller or by Mr . Finley\nweren ' t you? A They had nothing to do with last night ' s hearing. Q All right . At least you ' ve talked with them regarding this matter\nhaven ' t you? A Q Yes. All right . A No . So that means you ' ve gone over it . Q So tell me what lie she told with respect to Ms . Dillingham . A Number one , regarding the position, the length of the contract from 11 months to 12 months . She implied that Yvette Dillingham accepted the 11 month p osition and that she left the district just to accept the job in Pulaski County . The position BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 0 1 ) 53 7 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 u u n 24 was changed to 12 months . She also lied because she is the one who actually recommended that the position be downgraded to 11 months , from 12 months to 11 months . That was her idea . Q Go ahead . What else? A That is it regarding Ms . Dillingham . Q That ' s one lie . What ' s the next lie? You said she lied . Did she tell lies about anybody else other than Dillingham? A When she said that the superintendent threatened her , that was also a lie . Q All right . What else? A That is it . Q I see . Were you present in all the meetings that she had with the superintendent? A No . Q How can you say that - - A She said one was done in my presence and it was not done so I can speak to that one . Q So that ' s the only one that -- A That I can speak of . Q What was the date of that? A I don ' t recall . According to her, it was done sometime in the summer. Q Did you ever hear the superintendent compliment her work performance? A I can't recall a specific incident , no. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever complement her work performance between June and November or December , 2006? A I can ' t recall a specific incident , no . Q I see . Now , with respect to Ms . Dillingham, did Ms . Beverly Williams participate in those decisions involving Ms . Dillingham? A At the time she was the director of HR so she had some involvement . Were you present during that i nvolvement? No , not with Beverly , no . 25 Q A Q Isn ' t it true that Ms . Beverly Williams was the one who was the architect for the reorganization? A There was a transition team . Q I understand that . But the person who had the day- to-day responsibility for that and who did the work was primarily ~~ Beverly Williams\nwasn ' t it? A She did the work of the transition team, yes . Q I see . Now , a recommendation is not a decision\nis it? A No . Q So Dr . DeJarnette had no decision- making power about down grading a position\ndid she? A No . Q I see . So that meant that she made the recommendation . Who made the decision to down grade the position? Who made the decision? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I would say the transition team made the recommendation to the board . The board made the final decision because the board approved the organization restructuring . Q Now , we know that basically administrations make decisions and then boards approve , except for last night . Who made the decision to chance Ms . Dillingham ' s position? Who made that decision? You said the transition team? A Made the recommendation to the board . Q Well , who decided to make the recommendation to the board? Was it you and Ms . Beverly Williams? A The person who recommends to the board is the superintendent . Q Well , who made the recommendation to the superintendent? A Q A Q The transition team . Was that you and - The transition team . Who else was on it besides you? A Beverly Williams , Karen DeJarnette , Mark Millholland , Sadie Mitchell . Q Did not you inform all of the people -- and Beverly inform all the people that there had to be departmental cuts in every department? A No . Every department did not receive a cut . Q Oh , we know they didn ' t but was not that the rhetoric and the explanation that was presented publically that every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 department was being cut? A That may have been the rhetoric but what we meant and we did the work , every department was not cut . Q That ' s right . Incidentally , is there any particular reason why it was virtually only black people who were cut? You heard Dr . Mitchell ' s -- A Q Which Mitchell? Board member Mitchell? Board member Mitchell . You heard her statement to the board that , of the positions that were cut , they were 90 percent or more African-American . Did you hear that? A I 'm certain if I were present I heard it . Q I see . Is there any particular reason why the impact of the reorganization fell most heavily upon African-American people at all levels? A I don ' t know of one. Q I see . Now , going back to Dillingham . She left the district just to accept a position in Pulaski County . Is it your position that Dillingham wanted to leave Little Rock? Did you ever talk to Ms . Dillingham? A Yes . Q A Was that when she met with Mr . Hattabaugh? That was on another occasion , yes . Q Did that follow the letter that I had written to Mr . Hattabaugh on her behalf? A I don ' t recall . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Were you aware that I had written a letter to Mr . Hattabaugh regarding this matter? A Yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that after that letter her position was restored? A That may have been the course of action . I see . Now , what authority did she supercede? Yvette Dillingham? 28 Q A Q No . No . Dr . DeJarnette . Reason number three was that Dr . DeJarnette superceded authority . I like to hear you talk because you were so forceful in saying that so I ' d like for you to forcefully tell me what authority she superceded . A One , there is a grievance policy that if there is a grievance there is a protocol that should be followed . She did not adhere to that protocol\nTwo , when she reported to the board regarding the quarterly report , the September '06 quarterly report , instead of taking it to myself , Mr . Hattabaugh , Dr . Brooks , the cabinet and then to the board , that was not followed. Q A What else? Does that have to do with the grievance? I think it led to her - - she would need to answer that . don ' t know . I Q I see . In terms of protocol , is there any writing defining this protocol? A Past practice establishes tha~ protocol . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Q How do you know about past practice since you haven ' t been here? A Well , since I ' ve been here for two years , that has been the practice . Q Do you know of any administrator in the two years that you ' ve been here , other than Dr . DeJarnette , to file a grievance? A Not under my command , no. Q So how could you know what the past practice is for administrators since you ' ve never seen one? A We have a grievance policy and she did not adhere to the policy . Q Well , just tell me , what is the protocol that is set forth in the policy that she failed to adhere to? A That she is to inform -- she is to take it to the supervisor . She did not do that . Q So she didn ' t come and tell you that she was grieving? A She did not come to me and say there was a problem . Q Well , isn ' t it true that before she filed this grievance that you and she had almost had a fight? A She filed the grievance -- Q A Just listen to my question . Okay . Q Isn ' t it true that you moved the gifted and talented people into part of her office space? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A That was done in May , yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that that provoked a response that required the intervention of Mr . Hattabaugh? A A conversation was had with Mr . Hattabaugh regarding the move , yes . Q And then after that conversation with Mr . Hattabaugh , you changed your plan to give her further accommodations by way of company in her off i ce? A Again , when gifted and talented was -- Q My question was -- A No . I need to give you some background . Q I don ' t need it . I just want to know . I 'm trying to 30 establish that you had a conflict with her and that it was longstandi ng and pre - existing and that Mr . Hattabaugh intervened and after that there was some temporary resolution . That is fair\nisn ' t it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY THE WITNESS : There was a conversation between Dr . DeJarnette and I . Mr . Hattabaugh was engaged in that conversation regarding the move of gifted and talented into her office and then we moved them out of her office into another room . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Q I see . Before you sought to put gifted and talented into her office did you discuss that with her? A Yes , and she agreed . Q And then when you sought to implement it , she disagreed? A Yes . Q I see . Isn ' t it true that you and she screamed and yelled at each other in the building? A I had a heated conversation in my office with her, yes . One conversation . Q All right . Okay . Now , is it your position that , had she wanted to grieve that situation , she had to first tell you she was grieving? A She could have taken it to Mr . Hattabaugh and to HR and followed the process . Q All right . Did she not take it to HR? A Not this particular situation, no , she did not . Q A She took the other one to HR\ndidn ' t she? She did not take it to Mr . Hattabaugh , nor to the superintendent. Q Well , she did take it to HR\ndidn ' t she? A Q Yes, she did . And when a person has a grievance , aren't they expected to take that to HR? A Q Yes . Now , what's wrong with her going to HR with her grievance? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q It was not a problem with her taking the grievance to HR . Well , what ' s the lack of protocol? 32 A When she superceded the process and took the information to the board , she did not follow the policy . Q Well , the policy says that a grievance , once filed , has to be acted upon within five days\ndoesn ' t it? A That ' s what the policy says . Q A Q Was her grievance acted upon with five days? That ' s an HR quest i on . Do you not know? I don ' t know . A Again , that is an HR question . Q Well , and it may be . But in order to determine that she didn ' t follow protocol , you have to be aware whether or not the five day rule was complied with\ndon ' t you? Don ' t you? A Again , the superceded the chain of command . Q In order to make that judgement , you have to be aware of whether the five day rule with respect to grievances was complied with\ndon ' t you? A Q If that is your inference . All right . Now , was she ever given a hearing on her grievance? A No , because she took it the board . Q I see . How much time passed between the time she filed her grievance and the time she took it to the board? A I do not know . That ' s an HR question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q I see . Let ' s go on . Is that the only authority of yours that she superceded? A That I can think of at the moment , yes . Q I see . Now , you say she was insubordinate . To whom was she insubordinate? A To myself , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks when she , again , superceded and went to the board -- Q So , by going to the school board A --immediately without going through the protocol , yes . Q I see . So those are one in the same . Superceded authority and being insubordinate , those are one in the same\naren ' t they? A I guess you could say they ' re parallel . Q A Q Well , if they ' re parallel that means two paths . That lead to the same course . Well , what is the other conduct that constitutes So what - - insubordination? What ' s on that other road? Or isn ' t it the same road? A When she communicated with you when she was asked to communicate with counsel before communicating with the Joshu2 Intervenors . Q A Q All right . Have you read this compliance remedy? Yes , I have . Is there anything in here that prevents her from communicating with Joshua? A And there ' s nothing in there that says she must communicate BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 with Joshua either . We must keep you informed . Q So where is it that she violated a rule when she communicated with Joshua? A When she was asked by counsel and the superintendent to -- we all were asked . Q When were you asked not to communicate with Joshua? A Q A Q A That was not what was given to us . You were asked not to communicate with Joshua? No . No . What was the directive? The directive was that if we are asked anything of Joshua , we must first send it to counsel . Q I see. So let me ask you this : School district ' s business is public\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes. And the only information regarding school affairs that ' s not public is personnel information\nisn ' t that correct? A Q Correct . So what information could she have that she could share with Joshua that was not A It ' s not that we could not share with Joshua but we needed to intervene with counsel before sharing it with Joshua . Q A For what reason? To make certain that we were not , in any way, putting the district at -- maybe you were asking for something that was not BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a part of FOIA . We don ' t know . That ' s why we have a counsel that gives us guidance . Q Let me ask you this : Do you know Walter Hussman? A I know of him . Q Have you ever met with him? A Yes . Q I see . How many times? A One . Twice , at the most . Q Where at? A In his office . 35 Q Why would you go to Mr . Hussman ' s office? He doesn ' t have anything to do with the school so why would you go to his office? A To have a conversation with him . Q For what? For what? A To meet him . Q You had two meetings so what was the second meeting there for? A A follow - up meeting . Q Oh , you wanted to meet him again? A Yes . Q For what purpose? I 'm sorry . This isn ' t amusing . I apologize . I ' ll take a minute if you want to . I ' d just like to know how Mr . Hussman can have greater access to information in this district when he has no obligation under the court order BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than Joshua counsel . A I did not provide Mr . Hussman with any information regarding the school district . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A At least you went to meet with him\nright? Yes . You never came to meet with Joshua counsel\ndid you? Did you invite me to come and meet with you? You ' re always welcome . But you never extended an invitation\nhe did. Well , that ' s fair . He extended an invitation? Yes . He also offered you some money\ndidn ' t he? He offered the district money . He did not offer me any money . 36 Q But that was the reason for going to meet with him\nwasn ' t it? He was offering money for a program that you wanted to implement? A That the district wanted to implement . Q Well , the district board had not said they were going to implement that program at that time\nhad it? A No . That ' s why we do research and we gather facts in order to present to the board . Q What was that program? Merit pay? A Q It dealt with the Teacher Challenge Project, yes . I see. So because he was giving you some money , you went BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 to try to find a way to get that money? A No , that ' s not why I went to try and find a way to get the money . He was already giving us the money . We did not need to motivate him to give us the money . Q All right . So what did you do at that meeting? A We talked about the project . Q A Q A Did you talk to him about program evaluation? No . Did you talk with him about unitary status? No . Q Did you talk to him about problems of remediating the student achievement disparities between black and white students? A No . Q A Q All right . Now , did you also meet with Mr . Greenburg? I don ' t know that person . He ' s the editor of the paper , the newspaper editorial section . A No , I ' ve not met him . Q I see . Now , let ' s talk about the other things . She did not comply with what? You said she didn ' t comply with -- what was it she didn ' t comply with? Ms . Springer here reminded me that she wasn ' t supposed to speak with Joshua . Doesn ' t this compliance remedy indicate that the court expected cooperation between the Little Rock School District and Joshua? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q And we have cooperated . Did you ever at any time initiate a meeting with Joshua? No . All right . Did you ever share any writing regarding any subject with Joshua? A What you have requested , we have granted to you . Q I see . Were you aware that we had a duty to be involved , just as ODM did , in what the district was doing? 38 A And we have shared t he information with you . You were part of the evaluation team meetings . Q What did you expect -- how did you interpret the court ' s statement , \" I expect Joshua to continue to fulfi ll its traditional role of monitoring LRSD ' s compliance remedy obligations? \" What did you understand that to be? A To be a part of the process of the evaluations that were being conducted . That ' s why you ' ve been extended the invitation to be a part of every team meeting that we have had . Q Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Is that the way you interpret that? We don ' t monitor unless you invite us? Is that your position? Is that your position? Will you answer that? A Q You can monitor with or without an invitation . I understand but that ' s the abstract theoretical . Did you understand that we had the obligation to monitor whether you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 invited us or not? A Q A Q You can monitor with or without - - Did you understand that Joshua was obliged to monitor? It ' s in the Remedy . All right . Now , did you ever discuss with anyone the traditional role of Joshua in monitoring LRSD ' s compliance obligations? A Q Define anyone . Anybody , including Mr . Heller . Did you ever discuss that with anybody in the district? We have talked about Joshua , yes . 39 A Q No . Did you ever ascertain what Joshua ' s traditional role was in monitoring? A The conversation has been had , yes . Q When was it had and -- A I don ' t recall . Q --with whom was it had? A Dennis Glascoe , when I first arrived and information regarding the compliance remedy . Only Dennis Glascoe? And other members of the team . Who else? Susie Davis , at that time -- I wanted more Q A Q A Q You know Susie Davis wasn ' t an administrator until you all came? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q She was a supervisor . That ' s right . And so A supervisor is an administrator . Okay . That 's f i ne . On Susie Davis , you all created a special program for her to promote her\ndidn ' t you? 40 A No , we did not create a special program to promote her , no . Q That ' s another issue . I won ' t get into that one now . She ' s a friend of yours\ni sn ' t she? A Q She ' s a colleague . I see . She ' s K- 12 coordinator\nis that right? A She ' s a K- 12 director . Q Director . Okay . Now , let ' s go back . You indicate that Dr . DeJarnette was deficient in that she did not comply with something . What was it that she didn ' t comply with , other than what I ' ve already covered? The first thing you said was she didn ' t comply . A It basically deals with -- Q With the chain of command? A Q A Q Yes . All right . You ' ve already addressed that\nhaven ' t you? Yes . All right . Now , what is the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? Silence is an answer as well so I ' ll take that . Is that the answer? All right . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let the record reflect -BY MR . FINLEY: Let the record reflect that you gave her about three seconds to think about that -- BY MR . WALKER : If you call that three seconds , I ' l l go -BY MR . FINLEY : --before you interrupted her the first time . BY MR . WALKER: Q Well , what ' s the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to put it on the clock , we can do that . BY MR . WALKER : The judge is going to put us on the clock so we may as well do that . BY MR . WALKER : 41 Q I 'm still waiting on you to answer . This is the third time I ' ve asked the same question . A Q She takes the initiative . To do what? She takes the initiative to do what? If I walk out this door then I ' ve taken the initiative to leave . I mean , to do what , Doctor? That ' s important . Q Well , because of the prolonged silence this time , may I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 - 2 3 4 h ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 42 just simply say that you don ' t want to comment on that? Is that fair to say? A If you so wish to infer that . Q Well , can you give me some other answer other than that you don ' t wish to comment on that? A You may wish to infer that . Q Thank you . Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr. James Wooleb? A No . Q Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr . Ed Williams? A I worked with Dr . Williams on a couple of projects , yes , he is a very good worker , diligent . Q I see . Is there any particular reason you chose Dr . DeJarnette or the committee chose Dr . DeJarnette over Mr. Ed Williams for the position? He was a competitor for the position\nwasn ' t he? A Yes , he also applied for the position . Q I see . And you all selected Dr . DeJarnette over him\nright? A The committee did , yes . Q What was it that caused her qualifications -- I guess it ' s a qualification driven decision -- what was it that caused her qualifications to be considered superior to his? A I would have to go back and review exactly what BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q You don ' t have a recollection of what took place? A I don ' t recall e xactly what gave Dr . DeJarnette , I guess , the place over Dr . Wil l iams . I do not recall . I just know that it was the consensus of the committee that she be recommended for the position . Q Di d you make the decision to summarily remove her from her position? A Did I make the decision? Q A Q A Q A Q made? A Q A Q Yes . No . Did you recommend that that decision be made? I was in collaboration with the decision being made . Did you make the initial recommendation? No . Who made the initial recommendation that that decision be My supervisor . Who is that? Hugh Hattabaugh . What did Mr . Hattabaugh say to you as his rationale for making the decision? A Basically, the points that were brought out in the grievance - - excuse me , not the grievance -- the hearing or the grounds for termination . Q Before you all terminated her and walked her out , did you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consult with counsel? A Yes . Q A Q out? Was that Counsel Heller? Yes . Why was it necessary to have security come and walk her A I was not engaged in that activity . Q Did you inform Dr . DeJarnette after the board meeting 44 yesterday or last night that she was not to return to work until next Tuesday? A Q A That is correct . On whose authority did you take this action? My own . Q Is there any regulation that says that you may overrule the board ' s decision? A The board said she was reinstated . The board did not say when she would return to work . Q I see . Do you know what the past practice of the district has been when reinstatement decisions have been made? A No . Q A Q Did it matter to you? Yes, it does matter to me . Why didn ' t you ask somebody before you made the decision to tell her not to come back to work? A If I need to - - if it ' s one that was made out of error then BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 it can easily be corrected but I will not be in the office the majority of this week and I need time to make certain that she ' s welcome back and that there ' s a transition between what has occurred during her absence and when she returns . I will not be in the office until Tuesday , hence the decision was made for her to return on Tuesday . Q Why is it necessary for her to be there when she returns , especially in view of the fact that you don ' t hold her in high regard anyway? A Q A Q That ' s your opinion . Didn ' t you just say that? No , I did not say that . Did you not say that she was a liar , she superceded authority and was insubordinate? A Yes , I did say that . Q I see . So doesn ' t that mean that you do not hold her in high regards? A No . You cannot draw that conclusion from those statements . Q Do you know anybody that ' s a liar that you hold in high regard? Excuse me . I apologize . (Off the record) (After the break , the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : BY MR . WALKER: I want to go on record as, again , apologizing to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 Dr . Roberts and to Mr . Heller and to other counsel for my response to her question when I asked the question about a liar . I 'm still of the view that I can ' t understand it but I should not have exhal ed or exploded as I did so I do apo l ogize , for the record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Now , going on . Do you hold Dr . DeJarnette in high regard as a professional? A Regarding implementing the duties and responsibilities outlined in the job description? Q A Q Yes . She ' s able to do the job , yes . All right . Now , do you know the difference between a policy and a regulation in the school district? A Q A it . Q A Yes . Is there a policy IL- R in the district? We have several of them . You need to give me the title of IL- R. Is this the one dealing with the embedding of the comprehensive assessment process? Q A Q A Right . That ' s what I mean by the title . Well , it ' s called IL- R, Comprehensive Assessment -- That ' s what I 'm talking about . This part. That ' s the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 title . Q Is that a board policy or a regulation? A Risa regulation . Q I see . Where is the policy on this subject? A I ' d have to go back and look at the board manual that we have . Q You are aware that there is a policy IL\naren ' t you? A Yes . Q And does the policy mirror IL-R? A It addresses the assessment process . Q Who developed IL-R? A Dr . DeJarnette Q I see . A --was the main author . Q Who developed IL? A That was done before I arrived . I don ' t know . Q Are you familiar with another - - I ' ll show you another one called IL- R. A This was the one prior to my arrival . No , this is the same one , if I 'm not mistaken . It's the same one . Just different font and print . It must be the same one . May I see that form again , please? It should be the same . Just different font. Q Doctor , are you familiar with both of those things? A This is the one that is in our policy book that was reported to the court . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Which one are we going to be discussing in court? The one that was reported to the court . Which is which? Both of them have the same IL - R 48 designation so which one will be going to court on? A If I 'm not mistaken , there should be a date at the bottom when it was adopted . This is December 16 , 2004 . This one is October 10th, 2002 . So this is the one we ' re using . Q 2004 . Okay . Now , these two things are different\naren ' t they? A Yes . The '04 has been updated . Q The '04 has been updated? A Yes , to address the compliance remedy . Q One of them is called Program Evaluation Agenda and the other is called Comprehensive Program Assessment Process . They have different titles so that suggests that they have two different purposes\ndoesn ' t it? A A lot of the information that is here is embedded in this so this encompasses this . Q Doctor , with the two different titles , they are different\naren ' t they? A One could infer that just from the titles but then you need to read the content . Q Now, for a thing to be embedded -- how do you know the second one to which you referred, which is the '04 document, is embedded? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 A Well , I 'm looking at it and some of the language is the same . Q I understand some of the language is the same . A I didn ' t say they were identical . I said some of the information has been embedded . Q Well , I want you to look at these since I 'm at a loss . The int erior of the documents seem to be materially different . Look at them and tell me what is the same . I don ' t want you to deal with i t superficially with the front page -- A Q That ' s why I 'm reading them both . I 'm looking at - - Look at the third page and you ' ll see material differences . A Well , this gives you an outline to the various ways that we ' re going to perform evaluations , yes . Q A Q Did you - - It provides a checklist . Did you have anything to do with the preparation of either one of these documents? A This was brought to my attention by Dr . DeJarnette when she was doing it before we took it to the board in December so , yes , I did have knowledge and do have knowledge of that , yes . Q What did she tell you when she prepared this document dated December 16 , 2004 entitled Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A It was to meet the compliance remedy regarding the comprehensive assessment process . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Q Now , do you have any identified programs that specifically address achievement of black students? Any programs in the district that are specifically designated for that purpose? A Yes . Q A Where are they found? Well , if we look at Smart , Thrive Q Where are they found? Is there a document of where they can be found? A Q A Q No . I see . So we have to search for them somewhere? No , we don ' t have to search for them. Well , let me ask you this : If I wanted to know what those programs were , as a monitor for Joshua , could I get that informaiton without going through Mr . Heller? A No . You would need to go through him . That ' s the process . Q Okay . But Mr . Hussman could get that information without going through Mr . Heller\ncouldn ' t he? A No . Q A Why couldn ' t he? He has never asked for it . Q Well , but if he asked for it then you ' d give it to him because it's public information\nisn ' ~ it? A And we would give it to you after talking with Mr . Heller , just as we have in the past. Q So , as a monitor , I 'm going to be impeded in a way that Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' I ' 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Hussman of the Democrat wouldn ' t? A Well , if he wants it for a newspaper article , we ' d go through the same because we are in court , we ' re being monitored by the court so , yes , I would also run it by Mr . Heller. Q I see . Now , has the compliance remedy been implemented? A Yes . Q What was the day that you can say it was first implemented? A Well , when I came we started implementing it . I 'm certain it began before my arrival but I can only speak to since I ' ve been here . Q When was it completed? A You can ' t complete it because it ' s a comprehensive process . It ' s ongoing. Q I see . Do you think it was completed at the time that the judge entered this order? A Entered the order that we should do the eight two step evaluations? Is that what you ' re talking about? Q Yes . At the time that the judge entered this compliance remedy in 2004 , had it been implemented? A Yes . We were released from certain portions of it except for this last piece , program evaluation . Q Well, that's all we ' re talking about here\nisn ' t it? A Okay . At that time then , no . That ' s why we ' re still in court . Q Was it implemented in December of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q The process had begun . When did you all make a determination that it had been completed or has that determination been made? 52 A We ' re go i ng to court because we feel we have met the spirit of the law . The piece that is ongoing is the comprehensive assessment process and , yes , we have put that in place . essence of that , yes , it ' s completed . So , in Q So you can say that the comprehensive assessment program process A Q A Q A Q Has begun . --is embedded in the fabric of the district? Has begun . No . Has it been embedded in the fabric of the district? We ' re in the process of embedding . All right . But it ' s not been embedded . Let me ask you : Have you had any if you embed something it ' s not -- I use a tick example . It ' s sort of like a tick\nisn ' t it? A tick getting into something and staying with that something until something happens . Has this been tick- liked in the district , the process? A I would say that it is in the process . Q That means then that the principals of the district , including the teachers and the administrators would all know what the process is\nwouldn ' t they? A They know pieces of the process , yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 53 1 Q How do you know that? 2 A Because I facilitate some of the workshops with the 3 principals . 4 Q So you ' ve given the workshops on that? When did you 5 facilitate those workshops? 6 A That ' s ongoing . 7 Q When is the last time you had a workshop? - 8 A This morning . 9 Q With whom? Which principals? -10 A At the assistant principals for instruction .  11 12 Q How many of them were there? A I want to say 12 . 3 Q And how many assistant principals do you have in the 14 district? 15 A Assistant principals for instruction . 16 Q How many assistant principals for instruction do you have 17 in the district? 18 A I want to say maybe nine . Seven . Seven or nine . Around 19 there . I can ' t recall without going through each school . 20 Q Are you saying that you have people who have the title of 21 assistant principal for instruction? 22 A Yes . 23 Q Are they at the high school level? 24 A And middle . Some middle schools. 25 I Q Not all? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 I A No . Q Which schools do not have assistant principals for instruction? A May I give you the list of schools that do? Q Yes . A Forest Heights Middle\nMabelvale Middle\nif I 'm not mistaken , I think , Henderson . And please put a question mark there . Who else at the middle school level? At the moment , 54 those are the ones that I can think of . and look at the list in my office . I would need to go back Q Who at the high school level? A McClellan , J .A. Fair , Parkview , Central and Hall . I think the person at Hall is part-time . It ' s an assistant principal but she ' s part-time API and other duties . Q All AP . Who is that person? A I cannot think of her name at the moment . I 'm sorry . Q Is she white? A I think she ' s black . Q What was the fellow teaching who had the catastrophe of killing his child at Hall? A What is the what? Q What did he teach out at Hall? A He taught civics . Q I see . Was that AP civics? A I think it was Pre - AP , if I 'm not mistaken. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, so you have seven middle schools and three of them have assistant principals A Q That I can recall at the moment . I see . So not all of the middle schools have principals for instruction? A That is correct. Q How do you make a judgement on which school will and will not have an assistant principal for instruction? A This was not a directive . This was a recommendation made 55 to the schools to have someone in addition to the principals excuse me -- in addition to the principal to oversee instruction . We gave the principal the authority to select someone if they met the job description . We did put together a job description and they selected someone to oversee that . Q So that means it ' s a teacher and that person is also given the additional title of assistant principal for instruction? A No . This person is an assistant principal . It cannot be a teacher . Q So this person is beyond the numerical standards set out for principals in a school? A No. Q So I take it that each one of these places has an assistant principal for instruction and also one for discipline? A Q They may have one for discipline, yes . Okay. You said that part of Dr . DeJarnette's failings was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 = 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 talking with Ms . Joy Springer? A Repeat that question , please . Q Do you contend that one of Dr . DeJarnette ' s failings wa s her speaking with Ms . Joy Springer? A If she spoke to Ms . Springer without speaking to counsel , yes . Q I see . Do you have evidence that she did that? A No . Q I see . A I do not have any . Q Did you ever ask Dr . DeJarnette if she had done so? A No . Q Did you tell the board last night that she had done so? A That ' s a closed hearing . Q I 'm just asking what you told them . A I will not give an account of the hearing , which was closed , last night . Q What ' s your authority for not answering my question? A If it were open , I would gladly respond to and give you my response to questions that were asked of me last night but this BY MR . WALKER : Mr . Finley , since you ' re handling this , are you instructing her not to answer that? BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 It was closed session so you can direct me either way . BY MR . FINLEY : Why don ' t you just ask her questions other than what you said at the hearing? Why don ' t you just ask her -- so she doesn ' t have to breach that confidence . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t know that there ' s a confidence . BY MR . FINLEY : Well , if the law allows it to be a closed hearing BY MR . WALKER : Well , a subpoena -- I mean , throughout these proceedings , we ' ve been able to ask what went on in the school hearings plus the hearing transcript is something that is going to be prepared and it becomes a matter of record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me ask you : Have you ever told anyone that one of the reasons for recommending her termination was that she spoke with Ms . Joy Springer? A No . Q Have you ever given anyone reasons as to why she was terminated , other than the ones that you ' ve set forth here? A Just the ones that were listed in the termination letter . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 Q Now , is it fair to say that you were never in an evaluation team meeting conducted by Dr . DeJarnette regarding program assessment and evaluation where I was present until about five months ago? A No , I think we were in others before then . Q Do you recall approximately when? A We were a part of the ones that we did before . The Compass Learni ng , the Year- Round , all of those evaluat i ons . I 'm certain I attended some of those meetings . I can ' t recall the exact dates . I ' d have to go back and look at my calendar . Q Was Ms . Springer present in any of those meetings before September? A Yes , that I was in attendance , yes . Q Where Dr . DeJarnette was the person conducting the meeting? I 'm not talking about the big meetings were you had programs . I 'm talking about those little work sessions , 12 , 15 , 20 people A Q A The evaluation team meetings? Yes . I ' ve been in meetings with Dr . DeJarnette and Ms . Springer in those meetings before September , yes . Q Did you keep minutes of those meetings? A The team kept minutes and reported -- someone from PRE was given the responsibility of keeping minutes , which were then sent to all members who were present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q Tell me what the problem is with the data warehouse . Is there now a data warehouse in the school district? A Yes . Q When was it completed? A It is still be constructed . You never complete a data warehouse because you keep adding elements . Q When was it substantially completed for present use? A I would say starting around July or August , around there . Q Who is in charge of the data warehouse? A It is housed within computer information systems , which is supervised by Nancy Morgan . Q Does Nancy Morgan report to John Ruffins? A She reports to John Ruffins , yes . Q Has Mr . Ruffins , before November or December , been involved in any of the evaluation meetings that you have held? A I have not seen him at any , no . Q I see . What is Mrs . Morgan ' s responsibility with respect to program assessment and evaluation? A She ' s in charge of housing the data and collecting data when necessary , when needed , in order to fulfill the requirements of a program evaluation . Q What is her title? A I believe she is the program information specialist , I believe . I may have to confirm that . Q Does she report directly to Mr . Ruffins? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q She reports to Mr . Ruffins . And does Mr . Ruffins report directly to you? No , he does not report to me . To whom does he report? Mark Millholland . I see . What is Mr . Millholland ' s role with respect to program evaluation? A He is the chief financial officer in CIS . Computer 60 information systems is an area of responsibility for him so , in essence , that is the connection that he has . Q Has he been to any of the team meetings? A Not where I was present , no . Q I see . Now , is there anything about Ms . Springer ' s affidavit that I showed you that you would disagree with? Take a moment . If so , just draw our attention to it and explain it and then just keep going . A We ' ll speak about Number 5 . Q State your objection or disagreement with that . A She states -- again , this is just being viewed from a document that the district publications , which report activities with respect to professional development revealed no professional development regarding the area of program assessments and evaluations . The document that was asked of us was regarding professional development for the schools , for the teachers, and in that document we list content area of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5:10 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 professional development . That is not all the professional development that we do in the district . For example , the professional development that was rendered today is not a part of the calendar , if you will , to look at our catalog for this year . The professional development that we did when we went to every school and met with the faculty and provide training regarding how to access CIS , that ' s not a part of the catalog but that is professional development , which is centered around program assessments and evaluations . Q Did anyone from PRE go with you this morning? A No . Q Did anyone from PRE got with you any of these other times? A No. Q Do you explain what PRE is doing when you go to meet with these people? A No. The schools know the role of PRE . Q Well , do they know what the court has ordered? A Yes . And PRE has done some of these workshops . Some of them have been conducted by Dr . Williams , Maurecia and even Karen , herself , in the past . Q Well, let me ask this : Have you shared the court ' s compliance remedy with all participants in the training? A I did not specifically allude to the compliance remedy , no . Q I see. Now , go on down . That's Number 5 . What else do you disagree with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 A Number 7 , regarding the data available to PRE . The PRE has 2 been able to access the data needed at any time . I 3 Q Who told you that? 4 A Dr . Williams , himself , as recently as yesterday . 5 Q I see . Before you leave that , with respect to Dr . 6 Williams , what caused you to meet with Dr . Williams yesterday? 7 A We were just having a conversat i on . We had cab i net 8 yesterday . 9 Q He ' s in cabinet now? 10 A Because he ' s the interim director , he was there 11 representing PRE . 12 Q Is that the first cabinet meeting you all have had in like 3 a month? I 'm not talking about executive cabinet . 14 A It has - - I think this was his first meeting to cabinet . 15 Q So you all haven ' t had a cabinet meeting since Dr . 16 DeJarnette was summarily removed? 17 A I cannot recall us having one where he was present . 18 Q Did you have one at all? Whether he was present or not? 19 A I believe we have had -- yes . 20 Q Did he give a report on the status of PRE at the cabinet 21 meeting yesterday? 22 A No , he did not . 23 Q Have you been the one in the past to evaluate his work 24 performance? 25 A No , he does not directly report to me . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Have you been the one to approve the evaluation of his work performance or disapprove? A Q A Q I 'm not his supervisor so , no . I see . Now , go on to the next one . Number 8 , I do not understand . All right . Go on to the next one . A I would need to go back and check my calendar but , if I 'm not mistaken , I 'm almost certain that April 18th was not my first time being present at an evaluation team meeting. I would need to go back and verify this information . Again , it has been qualified where Joshua was present so maybe Joshua was not present at the meetings where I was in attendance . I would need to go back and validate that . Q All right . That ' s in 2006? A Q A Q According to this . Did you attend any evaluation team meetings in 2005? Again , I would need to go back to my calendar and check. All right . Did you ever meet with -- did you go to California to meet with Dr . Catterall? A No , I did not . Q A Q A Q Did you ever meet with Dr . Burnhart? Yes . Did you find her to be a qualified person? Yes . Did you find her to be stature in the profession with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 respect to professional evaluations? A School improvement and the use of data , yes . Q I see . Did you ever tell anyone that she was not objective when it came to the use of the data warehouse being discussed at that time? Was it Tetra - Data? A Did I ever tell anyone that? Q A Q A Q A Q A Yes . No . I see . Have you ever heard any comment to that effect? Made where there may be a conflict o f interest? Yes . Yes . Who made that comment? It was made by Mr . Hattabaugh because she ' s on the board . It was stated by Dr . DeJarnette that she ' s on the board of Tetra , hence a conflict . Q Why is it a conflict? Mr . Heller represents the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District . Where ' s the conflict? A He ' s not selling a product . Q Oh , he ' s selling a big product . A Q A Q What is it? Time . The board has already hired him . But they didn ' t hire him for the Public Education BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Foundation\ndid they? And agree to pay him? BY MR. FINLEY : Do you want her to read it or -BY MR . WALKER : 65 Yeah . I 'm just talking about -- she ' s corning up with these things about Dr . Burnhart . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A Again , Number 10 , I would need to go back and look at the minutes. It ' s stated here that the district did not have participates at the '05- '06 meetings . I would need to go back and verify that . Q That ' s fine . Keep going . A Number 11 , the district attempted to diminish the importance of the PRE staff regarding the testing coordinator position . Q Let me ask you : Is it true that that coordinator position is very important? A It is important regarding the test administration . It is not important in terms of the compliance remedy . The compliance remedy deals with program evaluations . The testing coordinator is a part of PRE . It ' s a -- go ahead . Q No , go ahead . A Q I' rn done . I 'm listening . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm done . I ' d like for you to finish that . I 'm finished . 66 Q You ' re saying that the testing coordinator position is not integra l to the PRE Department for it to work in embedding the process? A The testing coordi nator oversees , administers the testing program in the district . The ACTAP , the DIBBLES (phonetic sp . ) , those standardized testing measures , tools . If we were to remove testing coordinator from PRE , we would still need to comply with the court remedy by evaluating programs and embedding a comprehensive assessment process . Q Okay . Keep going with the affidavit . BY MR . WALKER : Madam Court Reporter , if you ' ll just put in the record that we ' re still under the headline of Ms . Joy Springer ' s Affidavit so that , if we have to use it at trial , we will be able to do that . BY THE WITNESS : Again , Number 12 , where PRE does not have access to the data warehouse and that PRE members were not sure that they would have liberal access . PRE has the most access to the data warehouse of any department in the district . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A not . Q A Q How can you say that? Because they have full access where other departments do Have you discussed that with Dr . DeJarnette? She knows that . How do you know she knows that? 67 A PRE has received the most training of any department in the district regarding the data warehouse . Q A Q A Q A I see . Are you still using Business Objects? Yes . Is that something that you all used in Florida? No . What was the program you used in Florida? We did use Crystal Reports , yes , in Florida as the data display but it was not our data warehouse . Q Did you bring Crystal Reports here with you? A Q No , it was here when we came . I see. Keep going . A Okay . The last one , Number 15 , it appears that Dr . DeJarnette is no longer involved in PRE decisions and regarding the assessments generated by Compass . Q Was she involved in the assessments generated by Compass after July 1, 2006? A The assessments that were done by Compass Learning were done by her department . We did not hire someone else to do it . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Q Did they have the responsibility as a department to provide ongoing formative assessments for students , teachers and administrators? A Repeat the question , please . Q Did PRE have the responsibility for providing formative , ongoing assessments? A Q A Q A Q A No . To provide formative ongoing assessments? Yes . No . Did anyone have that obligation? To provide Yes . That would be my responsibility to ensure that schools have formative ongoing assessments and to help them create them . Q Isn ' t that part of the comprehensive assessment process? A Yes . Q Isn ' t it expected that what you do is integrated into what PRE does? A Q Yes . Has it been done? A Yes . PRE has had involvement with the analysis of the data and how to use the data to inform instruction . Yes , that has been done . Q A Explain to me what is meant by formative assessments . Those are ongoing assessments . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A What is the purpose of a formative assessment? Are you talking about formative assessments used by teachers or formative assessments in terms of an evaluation? Q Let ' s do both of those . A Okay . Formative assessments being used by teachers are 69 assessments that teachers use to assess the progress of students on an ongoing basis . Q What is their source of data? A You use those same assessments to determine what the next assessments would be . Q A Q Well , what is being used in order to make the assessment? What is currently being used? No . No . For these teacher -- what are the data that the teacher uses? A They use classroom data that they collect from their students . They can use the quarterly assessments that we have . They can use the ACTAP . They use multiple assessments to determine . Q I see . Now , are all those things contained in the database? A Some are\nsome are not . The classroom assessments would not be . Q A Q Why not? Because those are ongoing day- to - day assessments . How can make a comprehensive assessment of a child and a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 child ' s needs without having all the data? A The teacher has that . The teacher uses those pieces of data . They will look today and say that , in terms of Olivine , this is what is I need to do differently tomorrow . The teacher is using that in-time set of data to make decisions regarding the next lesson . Q A Q A How do you monitor that? The principal monitors that . How can the principal monitor that? By classroom walk- through ' s . That ' s why we have coaches in the buildings to help go into classrooms to observe -- so we have some measures in place within the school to determine the use of data . Q Do you have any programs that are being assessed by persons outside the school district? A The evaluations that we are in the process of completing , the four evaluations . Q Anything else? A There is an evaluation that is being done on the Teacher Achievement Challenge Project . Q Who is doing that? A That is being done between a collaboration of PRE and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Q A Is there a written contract to sustain that? I would need to check with Mr. Millholland to see if there BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a contract . Q Who entered into that agreement and when? A Again , I would need to check with Mark with that . not involved with the contractual piece of it . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette involved? I do not recall . Was Mr . Ed Williams involved? I do not recall . I was A Q A Q Are the r e any other assessments being undertaken by any other group such as the University of Arkansas? A No . Just internally . I believe the -- and this has been 71 ongoing -- the TAP program has an evaluation that is being conducted by TAP , which is the Milken Family Foundation and they do an evaluation of all schools that are involved in TAP . Q Is that keyed into the comprehensive evaluation and assessment program that Dr . DeJarnette oversees? A That piece is -- I do not believe it is . Yes , it is . We have incorporated that with the Teacher Achievement Project , the project that is being done at Wakefield , Meadowcliff and the other schools along with Stevens and Rockefeller and those are the two that are involved in TAP . Q The Wakefield Project is one financed by Mr . Democrat\nisn ' t it? A The Wakefield Project is being funded by the district . The board approved that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s the one that was started by Mr . Hussman? That was funded by his -- Did you all make the commitment to Mr . Hussman that if he funded these programs then you all would pick them up? A The district did not make that commitment . Q But you did pick them up\ndidn ' t you? A The district did. The board approved that . Q Now , the district also has a number of grant programs\ndoesn ' t it? We have several grants , yes . 72 A Q And the understanding is that those grant programs will be picked up by the district , just like the Hussman program would , upon the grant running out\nisn ' t it? A Not necessarily, no . I ' d have to go back and read each grant and each RFP. Q Tell me why it is that you have these grant programs in the southwest schools that when the grants end then the programs end . A For example? Q The National Science Foundation A The National Science Foundation Q 21st Century is one . A 21st Century, we still have in place . Q Who is funding it? A 21st Century is st.ill being funded by the federal BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 government . Q Doesn ' t that run out this year? A I would need to go back and check . Some schools still have it for another two or three years so I would need to go back and check . Q Well , for the ones where it has run out , has it been p i cked up by the district? A I believe all the schools that were involved in 21st Century , since my arri val , are still involved . Q Have you integrated the program -- first of all , is there any agreement between you and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments? A Between me and -- Q The school district and the Public Education Foundation . A We ' re involved in a partnership with the Public Education Foundation , yes. Q Did you agree that they would be qualified to do formative assessments for the school district? A They are not doing the formative assessments . They are helping with the funding of the formative assessments . The formative assessments are being developed by another entity . Q Who is that entity? A Hot Springs Learning Institute . Q So you have an assessment relationship with the Hot Springs Learning Institute? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 - 3 4 ' 5 I 6 7 = 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  24 25 74 A Yes . Q Is that integrated into what PRE is doing? A They ' re involved in the use of the data , yes . Q Who is in charge of the Hot Springs Learning Institute? A It was recently , I think , extracted from the Hot Springs School District . I believe it was a part incorporated within the Hot Springs School District . Q Who is the person responsible for that? A The superintendent . Q Which superintendent? A I cannot think of his name at the moment . I 'm sorry . He recently retired and resigned to chair that particular institute and I cannot think of his name at the moment . Q So it ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation -- A Excuse me . Repeat that please . Q It ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments of programs in the Little Rock School District? A There is a partnership between the Little Rock School District and the Public Education Foundation to have formative assessments be done . The Public Education Foundation does not develop the assessments . We consider it a conduit . Q Do you have anything to do with respect -- is there a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 - 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 process for embedding the assessment process into ACSIP? How do you deal with ACSIP in so far as embedding the assessment process into the fabric of the district? A Well , the ACSIP is the vehicle through which we address the improvement of schools so it is a natural connection to the comprehensive assessment process because , in order for us to develop a quality improvement plan , you do need to make certain you ' re looking at every aspect of the school . You need every measure of data in order to make an informed decision as to what to do next and what remedy the deficiencies that are in the school . Q Do either you or Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams or anyone else propose to use ACSIP for embedding the assessment process? A Use ACSIP as the tool for embedding? No . ACSIP can be used as a part of but ACSIP cannot be the only vehicle through which . Q I understand but is ACSIP one of te vehicles that - - A That can be used . Q Have you all agreed that it will be used? A In time, it can be used . It will be . Can be and will be . Q Have you had this discussion with Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams? A Yes . That is why ACSIP was ruled under the supervision of PRE with that intent . Q Which one of them did you discuss this with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 - 6 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 A Dr . DeJarnette . She ' s the director of PRE . Q Well , she was until A Well , this occurred way before she was suspended . Q What dea l ings have you had with the state department regarding the embedding of the evaluation process using ACSIP? A I have not had a conversation with the ADE regarding using ACSIP as the tool for embedding . Again , it is one piece of the comprehensive assessment process . It is not the piece . Q Do you see any role that the state has in embedding the evaluation process into the fabric of the d i strict? A In terms of making certain that we ' re still in compliance with the rules and regs as mandated by the state but it ' s our responsibility to ensure that we have a comprehensive assessment process within our district . Q Of course , they can monitor it\ncan ' t they? A That is their right . That ' s their responsibility . Q Do they have to go through Mr . Heller? A They oversee the school districts . Q Now , do you disagree with the compliance history that was prepared and presented to the board? I ' ll show you . I think that is Exhibit l . Have you seen that before? A Yes . Q Did you ever prepare a document that supports that? A I did not prepare a document . Q Have you seen a document prepared that contradicts that? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 A Have I seen a document that contradi cts this? Q Yes . A I do not recall at this time . I ' d have to go back and review the documents that I have . Q Do you contradict it? A Yes . Q Tell me how you contradict it . A Well , l et ' s start with Po i nt Number 1 . Again , this goes back to what was stated earlier . The removal of the secretary , the test coordinator assistant , along with the downgrade of the testing coordinator position -- these were all recommendations brought forth by Dr . DeJarnette during the reorganization of the district . No one directed Dr . DeJarnette to do this . She brought these recommendations to the table when a potential program analysis was conducted regarding the ramifications of this and Dr . DeJarnette was asked what would be the implications , what would be the consequences of these positions being removed or downgraded . She gave none . So , yes , I object to Number l . Okay . Number 2 , I believe it was in the Quattlebaum report where Dr . Ross , again , spoke that the data that he received was , I guess , quality in order to do -- that provided him the necessary information to complete the evaluations and he spoke to that in the Quattlebaum Report . Q Did he speak of that to you? A It ' s in the report . No , I did not speak to Dr . Ross , BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 himself . But he has not complained to us or to me regarding the quality of the data that he has received . Q Do you understand the Quattlebaum Report is hearsay? What is your opinion regarding that report? A Since we have completed evaluations from the evaluators , I will conclude that they had quality data to complete the evaluations . Q That ' s on the assumption that they wouldn ' t do an evaluation unless they thought it was quality and correct? A In the evaluation team meetings , we were able to remedy concerns or objections or questions or concerns that they had regarding the data . Q Have you seen reports to the effect that there were as many as 15 , 000 errors in some of the data that was transmitted to Dr . Ross? A No , I did not see those reports . Number 3 , regarding the Crystal Reports . Q Do you dispute that? A (no audible response) Q That ' s fine . You can just tell me the ones you object to . You don ' t have to give an explanation . about it because of time . A Okay . 3F . Q All right . A Of course, 3G. I 'm not going to ask you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay . A Number 4 . Q You ' ve never seen that document before? A Yes , I ' ve seen it before but every time I read it , I just get , you know . Q You get what? A Just -- Q Goose pimples? A Pardon? Q Goose pimples? A I wouldn ' t say that . - It alarms me . Q Does it make you angry? A Not angry , no . Q Upset? A No . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks -- BY MR . FINLEY : Are you going to let her finish it? BY MR . WALKER : Q I ' ll just assume that you disagree with most of it . A With most of it , I do , yes . Q That ' s fine . Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that the reinstatement of Dr . DeJarnette was a very sad day for the Little Rock School District? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 79 ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 ' 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 ' 12 3 ' 14 I 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21  22 23  24 25 80 Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that if the level of engagement from this community does not increase then you don ' t know what the future will hold for the Little Rock School District? Do you agree with that? A I ' d have to th i nk about that . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that Mr . Daugherty should have someone to run against him for the school board in the next election? A I think during any election tnat -- that is not my opinion . Q Have you heard Dr . Brooks encourage h i s principals to solicit someone to run against Mr . Daughtery? A No , I have not been in the environment where Dr . Brooks has done that . I ' ve not been there when that was done , if it ' s been done , no , not in my presence . Q I see . Now , in all these meetings where you were incidentally , would you find that appropriate for a superintendent to do? Solicit A No , I would not find that to be appropriate , no . Q Would you feel that that would be an appropriate basis for termination of a superintendent? A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Just in your judgement . A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Now , these meetings where you were present , the evaluation team meetings , did you sign in at each of those meetings? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I would have to go back and look at my data . I 'm pretty good about making certain record it on my calendar . if I 'm attending a meeting , I 81 Q I see . Can you tell me any progress that has been made in remediating or narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students in the Little Rock School District since you ' ve been here with respect to any program or test? A We ' ve not done an evaluat i on regarding the achievement gap with respect to a program so I would need to go back because the evaluations that have been done have not been in regard to closing the achievement gap . It ' s just been on the effect . Q Do you all plan to do that? Any evaluation with respect to the achievement gap being closed? A That is something that we will need to examine in the future but we have not done that . Q But for two years since you have been here , you haven ' t even addressed the subject\nis that correct? A We ' ve addressed closing the achievement gap , yes . Every day I get up and -- Q No . In terms of evaluating programs for that purpose . A For the purpose of -- Q Of closing the achievement gap . A We ' ve been addressing programs in terms of increasing the achievement of African- American students , yes . Q Do you know any one particular program that you have BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I ' I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 initiated which has that purpose as its objective? A In increasing the achievement of African-American students? Q Specifically , not generally . A I would say that the Algebra I program that we have put in place , Transition to Advance Mathematics , has been designed to address the needs of urban school children , which are predominantly , in this school district , African- American students . Q When was that put in place? A January of '06 . Q Has that program been assessed or evaluated? A It is not currently being assessed , no , but it will be at the end of this school year because we have not had one full year of implementation . At the conclusion of this school year when we receive the ACTAP data , we will then do an evaluation , a snapshot evaluation of the project . Q Did you work with Mr . Hattabaugh before you came here? A I supported him in terms of his school was one of the schools assigned to the learning community in which I worked . Q Was he also a middle level manager? A He was the principal . Q So that would be a middle level manager? A If you so define it . Q Well , he reported to three or four levels -- A Okay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Q Was he principal of a majority black school? A No . Q What is his experience in addressing programs to deal with the achievement gap that exists , you say universally , between African-American and white students? A I will say this : His school was a school that showed increased student achievement for African- American students as well as Caucasians so , I 'm certain that as a leader he was doino some things to improve the learning of students . Q Is there a report which demonstrates or establishes that fact? A If you were to go to the Florida DOE website and track the progress of the high school , that ' s where he was , you will see that , yes . Q I 'm asking if there is a report , an assessment or evaluation report which allows that conclusion? A No . But based on the performance of students as measured by the FCAT , the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, the students at Boone High School showed progress . Q That ' s your judgement\nright? A No , that ' s based on the report that they gave . Q That who gave? A The Florida DOE . Q Department of Education? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q So it ' s a written report? Yes , that you can access their website and check . And how many African-American students did he have in his school? A I would have to go back and look at the numbers . Q Was it an elementary school? A No , it was a high school . Q All right . So you and Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks were friends in Florida? A Q A Q We were not friends , no . You were professional acquaintances? We were professional colleagues . And you supported him and he supported Dr . Brooks? A He was one of the principals who reported to Dr . Brooks. Q Do you recall making a statement when you came here that the people in Arkansas were unknowledgeable about education or something to that effect? A No , I 'm sorry , I never made that statement . Q Did you ever hear (inaudible) 84 A No , because when I came here I was very impressed with what was going on in the department so I would not have made that statement . I can only speak for me . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t have anymore questions . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Concerning Ms . Springer ' s Affidavit , she talks in Paragraph 6 about the use of questionnaires which the court expected . Did we use , LRSD or its outside experts , use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A Outside -- repeat that , please . I 'm sorry . Q Did the school district or its outside evaluators use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A I believe that the outside evaluators did conduct surveys , yes . Q And then with respect to ACSIP plans , and I think that ' s what Ms . Springer is referring to in Paragraph 8 when she says PRE was assigned responsibility for preparation of school improvement plans . Would those be ACSIP plans? A It would be ACSIP plans . Q Okay . Was the ACSIP plan a legitimate part of PRE ' s responsibilities? A Yes , it is . Q Has it worked to use data to improve the achievement of students in the district? A Yes , it is . Q With respect to programs that Mr . Walker was asking you about at the end of your deposition , are there programs which BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 have been evaluated by the district which have been shown by those evaluations to improve the achievement of African- Ameri can students? A Q A Yes . What are some of those programs? The Pre - K literacy , Reading Recovery , Smart , Year- Round . believe all the others were inconclusive . BY MR HELLER : That ' s all I have . FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q How many children were involved in Year- Round , whatever that means? I ' ll just use your term . What is the population that was involved? A I would need to go back . I do not recall the exact number of students were involved in the intercessions or involved in Year- Round is a school (inaudible) program so I ' d need to go back to the evaluation report . Q There are only several schools that participated in that\nisn ' t that fair to say? A There were three schools that participated . Q A Q What were they? Woodruff , Steven , and Mabelvale Elementary Schools . All those together don ' L have more than 1 , 500 students\nis that fair to say? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 87 ' 1 2 A Yes . Q Were all of them involved in Year- Round? ' 3 A All three schools were involved in Year- Round , yes . 4 Q Were all the students within the school involved in Year- I 5 Round? 6 A I do not believe all the students went to intercession . 7 Q I see . How many were? 8 A Again , I would need to look at the report . 9 Q I see . And how many schools were involved with Reading 10 Recovery? 11 A If I am not mistaken , I think at the time , 10 or 12 12 schools . I don ' t remember . 3 Q Were they all elementary? 14 A Yes , it ' s a program designed for early literacy . 15 Q How many students participated in those programs? 16 A Again , I would need to go back to the report . 17 Q How much disparity was overcome by use of those programs 18 that evaluations reveal? 19 A I recall it was statistically significant . I cannot recall 20 the P value if that ' s what you are asking for or the level of 21 confidence . I would need to go back and look at the report . I 22 do recall that it was statistically significant . 23 Q Was that judgment made before the end of the last school 24 year? 25 A Because the report was conducted , yes , during that time . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 Q Did you expand reading and recovery to other schools ba sed on those facts? A Yes , we did add some schools . Q How many schools have been added? A I believe we added two or three schools this year . Q Why didn ' t you add the rest of them? A Cost . Q I see . Do you have any idea how much this DeJarnette proceeding has cost the district? A No , I do not . Q You understand that every time you have both these lawyers involved that it cost about 5 to $8 , 000 a day? A No , I do not know their fees . Q Do you not understand that the Quattlebaum report cost at least $20 , 000? A No . Q What kind of costs would have been involved in expanding the reading recovery program to more schools? Per school , how much more cost would be involved? A Each time you add a reading recovery program, you ' re adding a teacher and that Q I see . That would be $35 , 000 to $50 , 000? A Approximately . Q I see . Do you call pre- K literacy a program or is that a strategy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I II I 1 2 3 4 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 A The Pre-K literacy program is a program . Q It is a program? A Uh huh . Q How many schools is it in? A All of our pre-K . I Id say a majority of our elementary schools have a pre- K program . Q Are you saying that in the pre- k literacy program that the African- American students did materially better than they did in the ones that did not have a pre-k literacy? A There was not a control study that was done but the ones that were in that we have shown that students who participated in pre-k have been successful after leaving pre- k as well . The studies show that . Q Well , that may be so but in order to determine whether they ' re effective , you have to at least do a control study\ndon't you? A But you can also look at the effect after they leave the program to see if it has been sustained . Q Well , that ' s an opinion . Can you tell me any research source that agrees with your conclusion? A Well, apparently, the evaluators did . They reported it . Q I understand they reported it . Can you tell me any source that said that? A Not at this time . Q I see. Do you like Arkansas? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm enjoying my stay here . Thank you . You ' re welcome . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 4 : 45 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 90 91 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested, or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELL y' S :(\n:: ADCOCK ~ Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04 / 15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 ,._ :\\, .... -. ,..:. . .. :,., '  .!\n3 .. _~:.,:~- , .... ,.,-: ~\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1791","title":"Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-01"],"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","Education--Arkansas","School districts","School boards","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1791"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, proposed findings of fact; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of electronic filing, amended notice to file; 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 COURT WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4: 82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS INIBRVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT HISTORY 1. The LRSD began making verbal commitments to narrow the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students as early as 1989. To that end, the State of Arkansas, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors approved a plan of desegregation designed to address the accomplishment of that objective. The State of Arkansas devoted substantial amounts of money to that task. 2. It was contemplated that the objectives of the desegregation plan would 1 E0d t\u0026gt;S9ON ~ d ~3~ll;K1 M NHOf Wd2t\u0026gt;:21 L00291'N~f be completed by 1996. That date was extended for various reasons of noncompliance none of which may be attributable to Joshua. 3. In 2002, the court entered an Order releasing LRSD from court supervision in all areas with exception of program assessments. 4. When the district did not comply with the Court's order by 2004, the Court entered a new order making more specific its requirements upon the district and the parties. The Court contemplated that by October 15, 2006 the district would submit its final report reflecting its performance pursuant to its June, 2004 order. This date has now been extended and a hearing regarding compliance is - scheduled to begin January- 20, 2007. 5. The LRSD urges the Court to find that its has complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy in all respects and that the Court's supervision of any aspect ofLRSD's school operations should end. The Joshua lntervenors contend that the LR.SD has not approached the Court's 2002 and 2004 orders in good faith; that the ~chool administration during the intervening years has tried to frustrate and abort implementation of the Court's Orders; that the LRSD has been aided in that respect by the advice of district counsel, Chris Heller, and his law finn; and that the Court's Order of June, 2004 has been disrespected and disobeyed. 6. Part of the reason for the district's noncompliance with the 2002 order 2 was its preoccupation with promoting the return of white students to west Little Rock schools and with establishing programs that would assure parents of that section of the district that they could have majority white high quality schools in that area. For this reason, the school district has never publicly acknowledged in any publication or board resolution that it had a priority to address the dismal state of education for African American students in the LRSD. 7. In July, 2004, the majority of the board chose to select Dr. Roy G. Brooks over far more qualified applicants including Dr. Morris Holmes for the Superintendent's position. Dr. Brooks has never been a superintendent and is - unknowledgeable about any pertinent subject matter area before the Court. He was chosen to rubber stamp the majority agenda and to dismantle the strengths of the existing desegregation plan. His selection was opposed by large segments of the African American community. 8. When Dr. Brooks was hired, he was given a blank check to do as he pleased by the majority Caucasian board. Their emphasis was to provide technical compliance with the Court's Order, but to do as little as possible to otheIWise implement it. 9. A number of the Caucasian board members have been hostile to the Joshua Intervenors' participation in the implementation process and Joshua's 3 S\"d vS9\"ON ~ d ~3\u0026gt;il~M M NHOr Wd2v:21 L002 91Ntir making appearances before the Board to address the subject. 10. The present attitude of the school board majority differs materially from that of the precious majority with respect to program assessment and evaluation, addressing the achievement gap and support of the PRE Department. The PRE has not been fully supported in the past by the Dr. Roy Brooks and the majority of the school board. 11. The school administration and district counsel have sought to punish PRE Director Dr. DeJarnette because she made reports that honestly reflected the status of compliance and because she would not change them to reflect the school - administration's view point. For these reasons, she was tenninated by the Superintendent and replaced by Dr. Ed Williams but the school board overruled the Superintendent's actions and reinstated her. 12. This history is important because it sets forth the context in which the compliance remedy is to be considered by the Court. 13. The Court directed on June 30, 2004 the prompt establishment of a first rate professional research and evaluation department with a highly qualified director. The district did not post the position promptly. On or about October 1, 2004, it selected Dr. Karen DeJarnette for that position. 14. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications are set forth in PRE's 1st quarterly report 4 9'd vS9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wd2v:2l l002\"9l'N~f to the Court as well as the other members of the PRE department. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications for the task are universally acknowledged. She was selected ahead of Dr. Ed Willia.ms, a long term statistician within the district. He was the person responsible for the data presented to the Court by Dr. Bonnie Lesley. He was one of the persons to whom the Court referred at page 52 ofits June 30, 2004 order when the Court observed that lack of evidence of any current administrator in LRSD who had the experience or training necessary to perfonn prescribed informal assessments and/or evaluations. 15. When Dr. DeJarnette was selected she reported directly to - Superintendent Brooks. 16. Upon Dr. Brooks hiring, he selected two people who had worked with him in Orange County, Florida. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Brooks' Deputy Superintendent, had been a high school principal. Dr. Olivine Roberts had been a math teacher who served for a short time as coordinator of math and science curriculum for the same school district. Neither of these three had ever held a position at the highest level of a large school district. This is reflected Dr. Robert's salary of $60,000 and by her testimony. 17. The majority board was content with these selections because that enabled board members Berkley, Rose and Dr. Beverly Williams, Human 5 l\"d vs90N Resources Director, the opportunity to make the relevant major decisions regarding undoing the positive effects of the desegregation plan from which the district had been released by the Court. 18. Dr. Brooks' first major act was to adversely affect a number of African American school principals, replace them with white persons and then to adversely impact through a reorganization scheme a large number of African American staff members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell has described the reorganization as being \"racial\" and \"mean spirited.\" 19. Dr. DeJamette was made a part of the reorganization team, even though - she was new to the district. She was informed that the reorganization cuts would affect each department including her own. Dr. Beverly Williams required her to cut two positions and to reduce one other. This was in direct defiance of the Court's directive that the district create and maintain a highly trained and adequate PRE staff .. 20. Between January, 2005 and June 2005, Dr. DeJarnette began ,performing many tasks necessitated by the Court's order including holding regular meetings with stakeholders including the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM, if it may be called a stakeholder. 21. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE 6 8d t7S9\"0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHO WdEt?:21 L002\"9l\"N~  staff and the school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 22. In the Spring of 2006, Dr. DeJarnette informed senior administrators that there were problems with respect to implementing the Court's Order. It was at that point that Dr. Brooks became openly hostile to her. PROBLEMS WITH COMPLIANCE 23. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (Compliance Remedy, para. A) 24. LRSD administrators have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio'', and \"data warehouse.\"] Joshua Ex._ 7 6'd t\u0026gt;S9'0N ~ d ~3~7tJM M NHOf WdE:t\u0026gt;:2t L002'9t'Nl:::lf 25. In the preparation of the eight .. formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evah~ation reports. See Joshua Ex __ ( cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation). These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A ( court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; ... \") It was at all times apparent that building the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 26. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. B] a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and 8 ~ d ~3)1l~M M NHOf Wdvv:2l l0029l\"N~f variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; (iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Reading Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school - year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; (xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to detennine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questionnaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process 9 nd 17S9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wdl717:21 L00291Nt::1r has been delayed indefinitely. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. ( use of questionnaire postponed) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of9-l-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year, \" show that ~'LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not detennine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,,, compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating Zl\"d l\u0026gt;S9\"0N ~ d ~3~7t:/M M NHOf Wdl\u0026gt;l\u0026gt; :21 l 002 '9 l\"NtJf the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system, designed for use by school systems, which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See - Attachment at A-15 (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for asses~ments and evaluations. (Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Joshua Ex. 27. The step 2 evaluations contain insufficient descriptions of the programs 11 ct .d 17S9'ON ~ d ~3~7~M M NHOf WdSl7:2t L002'9t'N~f being evaluated and their implementation to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students, as it bas been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]. Joshua Ex. __ (Joshau Intervenors' Comments on evaluations) 28. While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Joshua Ex. ___ (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para, 4) 29. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph Hof the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments atA-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened ... (the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 30. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy. 31. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team 12 M \"d 1\u0026gt;S9.0N ~ d ~3~7t!M M NHOf WdSl\u0026gt;:2l L00291 N~f meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua representatives. Moreover, team member participation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Joshua Ex 32. The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Joshua Ex._ para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance History\"). For example, it is the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, that some of the key e Section 2. 7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step evaluations. Each of these ste,J2 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2. 7 programs as it has been..,implemented in schopls throu~hout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 33. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the 13 sr d t7S9. ON ~ d ~3~7\\:#M M NHOf WdSt7:2t l002\"9t\"Ntif LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for the 2005-2006 school year filed by LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Retnedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LR.SD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 35. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. FURTHER BAD FAITH 36. District counsel Chris Heller did not fully cooperate with the process in implementing the Compliance Remedy. He was largely unavailable throughout 14 91 \"d t7S9\"0N much of 2006 to the PRE staff, participated in but few of the evaluation team meetings and sought to prevent Joshua from having direct access to PRE staff and others who were charged by the Court with the duty of implementing the Court's directives. Rather than support the PRE director and at least be available to address her concerns related to implementing the process, meeting court deadlines, and actions to embed the assessment process into the curriculum of the district, Mr. Heller sought to subvert the PRE Director's activities. He was aided in this respect by district superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks. 3 7. The Court directed counsel for the parties to meet with ODM in an - attempt to resolve concerns which Joshua had regarding the district's compliance. Well in advance of the October 15, 2006 due report, Joshua then met with LRSD counsel, Chris Heller, in a meeting attended and arranged by ODM to further discuss Joshua's concerns. LRSD counsel refused to allow Dr. DeJamette or other officials to meet with Joshua to address the stated concerns. This meeting occurred on August 8, 2006. Mr. Heller did not offer to meet again with Joshua and ODM until November 1, 2006, shortly before the date for Joshua's submission of its objections to the Compliance Report. In the meantime, on August 17, 2006, being aware that Joshua knew a lot about the district's failings, he wrote Dr. DeJamette an email directing her not to discuss issues likely to be litigated in 15 L't'd t\u0026gt;S9 \"ON ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOr Wd9t\u0026gt; :2 't L0029i;N~r December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside his presence. Accordingly the flow information of information between Springer and DeJamette ceased. Dr. DeJarnette wrote that she could not provide a response to Ms. Springer's concerns about data being fraught with errors because she had been instructed by Mr. Heller not to do so. Joshua Ex __ 38. Moreover, Or. DeJamette repeatedly requested that Mr. Heller inform the Court of a need for more time in which to make competent reports to the parties and to the Court. Mr. Heller refused to do so. 39. Mr. Heller refused to meet with the newly elected board members to - inform them of anything with respect to the Compliance Remedy. Instead, he met with the Caucasian board members and Dr. Brooks and his administration, and engineered the displacement of Dr. DeJamette. He then caused Dr. Brooks to hire the Quattlebaum law firm to make a purported independent investigation of Dr. DeJamette suggesting at the same time that Dr. Ed Williams, a rejected applicant for PRE director, could perfonn the tasks sufficiently and provide the Court the necessary evidence to allow a court detennination that LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations herein. 40. Mr. Heller revised the 8th quarterly report by deleting pertinent information which reflected that district's noncompliance with Item B. of the 16 a1d i,s9ON ~ d ~3~7t::lM M NHOf Wd9t\u0026gt;:2\"C L002 91Ntlf Compliance Remedy dealing with the development of a comprehensive program assessment process. 41. The LRSD has refused to acknowledge in a nwnber of its publications (Guiding Principles, Annual Reports) that it has an obligation to assess programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. 42. Former school board member Tony Rose and current board member Larry Berkley have been openly hostile to Joshua's monitoring of the Compliance Remedy. 43. Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette with a - recommendation for termination after she reported to the Board problems of compliance regarding the Compliance Remedy. HIRE A IDGHLY TRAINED TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS 44. The PRE staff was materially reduced so that four staff members including Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Ed Wohleb, Dr. Ed Williams and Ms. Maurceria Robinson had to fulfill seven (7) full time position responsibilities for 14 months. In addition, in July 2005, the reorganization by Dr. Brooks of PRE added far more work to PRE responsibilities. This included developing a comprehensive plan (ACSIP) for each school in the district and a district Title I plan for the Arkansas Department of Education. In addition, PRE was called upon to develop 17 6't d vs90N questionnaires for thousands of parents, students and community members for public relations reports for the school district. This added work by Dr. Brooks for PRE materially affected the schedule developed by Dr. DeJamette for embedding the assessment process into the district's curriculum. 45. The LRSD school administration took action to divide the staff of the PRE. Early in 2006, Dr. Brooks began relying on statistician Dr. Ed Williams as his PRE contact person who would address certain PRE activities of specific concern to Dr. Brooks. He did this without consultant with or approval of the PRE Director, Dr. DeJamette. Dr. Brooks now contends that there is disruption in PRE - that undermines the effectiveness of PRE. Dr, Williams on the other hand denies that there is any disruption within PRE staff. When asked ifhe had anything negative regarding PRE Director DeJamette or her leadership, he said no. It does appear that upon Dr. Brooks removal of Dr. DeJamette. He elevated Dr. Williams to the Director's position and advertised for a new statistician at a time when Dr. Brooks was arguing that the PRE staff was sufficient in size. I find therefore as fact that there has been disruption within the PRE department and that it has been attributable to Dr. Brooks and perhaps others working in concert with him. It is appropriate therefore for the PRE department, under these circumstances, to report directly to the Board, rather than Dr. Brooks. I make this finding in part 18 02\"d t7S9ON ~ d ~3~lt/M M NHOf Wdlt7:2l L002'91'N\\:1f because Dr. Brooks is not thoroughly acquainted with the remedy, does not intend to respect Dr. DeJ arnette, and is not inclined to respect the majority of the board members of the LRSD with respect to school district administration. DEVISE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS 46. Each of the key programs listed in 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation Plan compliance reports have not been assessed during the 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 school years. Accordingly, the district does not represent any of those 2.7 programs as having been effective in improving the academic achievement of African American students. 4 7. The LRSD staff have not used the completed program evaluations as a part. of a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement. Moreover, LRSD has not used the step 2 program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of other related programs in addressing whether improvement has been made with respect to African American achievement. 48. Dr. Roy Brooks has primary responsibility beyond that directly assigned by the Court to the PRE Director, for ensuring compliance with this court's decree. It can not be said that Brooks has an understanding of the remedy set forth by the Court or the intended obligations imposed by that remedy upon his 19 administrative leadership. He is content to say that he delegated the authority for implementation to his subordinates, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent and Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction. 49. The Court is not persuaded that either Dr. Olivine Roberts or Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh had the requisite experience for meeting the court's compliance expectations. Neither of them had ever had district wide responsibility for program evaluation. Dr. Robert's highest level of supervision was as a coordinator in the area of math and science in Orange County, Florida, a majority white school system. Dr. Hattabaugh's primary experience was as an elementary school principal several levels removed from the top school administration, and had no district wide responsibility for anything. Moreover, Dr. Brooks can not be said to be knowledgeable with respect to program evaluation. Indeed, he could not recall ,;, the subject of his doctoral dissertation. 50. The two new African American board members, Charles Armstrong and Dianne Curry, have not been made fully aware by the school administration or by counsel of their obligations with respect to the Compliance Remedy. They complain that they have been kept out of the information loop by Dr. Brooks and Mr. Heller; and that when they sought to become informed about the status of compliance, the school administration reacted by summarily suspending PRE 20 Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette with a recommendation that she .be terminated. They, therefore, can not address the Compliance Remedy other than to say that if they are uninformed, then employees of the district in many cases are also uninformed. 51. Board member Larry Berkley, like board member Rose, was unable to say that the assessment process set forth in IL-R was embedded into the curriculum ofLRSD. Indeed, it was Mr. Berkley's viewpoint that the process was to be deeply embedded in PRE rather than the district as a whole. (Berkley Dep. pp. 7-8) Mr. Berkley did not recall that the deeply embedded process.required involvement of all of the stakeholders. (Depp. 9, See also p. 12 .... \" it's up to the admipistration to be make sure that ... this process within PRE is deeply embedded\") 52. For Mr. Berkley there was no way that PRE could make a presentation of its concerns to the Board in a public session. (Berkley Dep. p. 13) Moreover, with respect to the Board resolution of November 16, 2006, Mr: Berkley testified that when it was presented to the Board by Mr. Heller, he did not recall an explanation by Heller. Before then, the Board was aware of concerns from Joshua, PRE and ODM but the Board made no inquiry of Joshua, PRE or ODM about the status of compliance. (Berkley Dep. p. 22) 21 53. Mr. Berkley opposed the election of Armstrong and Curry because he felt that Dr. Katherine Mitchell had opposed Dr. Roy Brooks and with their election would fonn a voting bloc against Dr. Brooks on matters including the Compliance Remedy (Dep. p. 25) 54. At least four members of the current LRSD School Board do not believe that it is appropriate for the Court to discontinue supervision of the evaluation and assess requirements of the consent decree and the Court Order of June 30, 2004. 55. The LRSD presented Baker Kurrus, a prominent attorney and local business man, to establish that the district has indeed complied with this Court's order.. He testified that the Board annually adopts a program evaluation agenda but that he is unable to identify programs specifically identified by the school ,:, administration for the purpose of remediating and improving the achievement of African American students. He is unable to describe any actions taken by LRSD other than on paper and could not testify as to how the assessment and evaluation process had been deeply embedded into the district's curriculum. 56. In the past, LRSD has informed the Court that it had at least 46 programs designed to improve African American achievement. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction, could not identify any programs 22 with that specific purpose. Her explanation was that all programs are implemented for all children and that all children include African American children. She could not identify any programs that were specific and exclusive within the LRSD for the purpose of addressing the academic needs of African American children. 57. In 2004, the Court observed that many of the program evaluations of the district were so flawed that they revealed little of substance to be helpful in determine whether the programs were useful. That is still a concern of the Court in view of Dr. DeJamette's comments about the error rate of the data submitted by LRSD to the outside evaluators and to the testing agency for production of the high stakes testing results. \" 58. LRSD continually adds programs and program assessors and evaluators without regard for whether they address African American achievement. Dr. ~,\u0026gt;. Roberts has added for example at least 9 additional programs for district wide implementation. They include: curriculum mapping, SOAR, Voyager, CRISS, K- 12 Literacry Adoption, Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM), Teacher Incentive Project at Meadowcliff and Wakefield Elementary schools, Inclusion Special Education and ESL. (See Draft September 1, 2006 Quarterly Report) 59. When PRE began to assess some of these programs she was admonished by district counsel for including them in the draft report being 23 submitted to the Court. Joshua has noted that none of these programs were on the initial list of programs submitted to the court as being intended to address African American achievement. Joshua notes further that the merit pay initiative (Teacher Incentive Project) is sponsored by a private provocateur determined to impose upon the LRSD a requirement that teachers be paid bonuses for certain achievements. These achievements do not address specifically the issue raised by 2.7.1 60. In addition, before Dr. James left, Dr. James created other programs and set forth an evaluation process for them within a private group, which he funded with district finds, known as the Public Education Foundation of the Little. Rock School District. Those programs also have an. assessment and evaluation process. These assessments are not being coordinated by PRE staff. Indeed, Dr. DeJarnette 1.::-_ has had no material involvement with the people at the Public Education Foundation or with Dr. Roberts and the programs that Dr. Roberts has unilaterally added to the list of district programs. 61. This Court previously found that the LRSD Board of Directors had not approved its policy regarding the evaluation process for instructional programs. The Court now finds that the requirements of Board regulation IL-R, revised by Dr. DeJ arnette and Dr. Steven Ross, and approved in December, 2004, have not 24 I - I I been embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 62. Dr. Roberts determined to impede the PRE's efforts to embed the comprehensive assessment process by expanding it to include the development of each school's ASCIP plans and then later disbanding that process as well. Thus, approximately one year of work by PRE was wasted. This is so because the district chose not to follow the recommendations of consultant, Dr. Victoria Benhardt to create an appropriate framework for the data collection that could be easily accessed and used by PRE or any of the stakeholders in the process. 63. PRE' s efforts appear to have been further impeded by senior administrators with respect to PRE' s efforts to develop procedures for embedding the a,~sessment process. Because of Dr. Benhardt's consulting fees, the LRSD chose not to implement her recommendations with respect to school portfolios, '\u0026lt; creation of a database and development of questionnaire/surveys. Her recommendations were made in January, 2005 and were rejected by senior administrators in October, 2006. 64. With respect to the integrity of the data provided to the outside evaluators, Dr. Catterall acknowledged a high error rate which began at 65% in 2005, increased to 70% in 2006 and is likely to increase over time. Mr. Heller and Dr. Ed Williams disregard this high error rate as being important in making the 25 I I I I I I I necessary assessments and evaluations. It does not contribute according to Dr. DeJamette to valid reports that maybe used to address the issue. 65. Embedding the assessment process requires actually working at each school to improve the academic achievement of African American students. Input from a broad cross section of the teacher responsible for implementing each of the key 2. 7 programs, a determination that the key programs are being implemented with relatively equal effect and success at each school, an assessment of whether additional teaching specialists are needed at some schools in order to enhance the effectiveness of key programs and administering tests at various grade levels so that the achievement of African American students can be accurately followed and valid statistics complied regarding their year to year progress. Dr. DeJ amette agrees with this formulation while Dr. Williams and Mr. Heller do not. 66. Dr. Brooks never met with Dr. Ross regarding the comprehensive assessment process. Dr. Roberts met with Dr. Ross only one or two times. This is a reflection of the lack of importance those two parties attached to the comprehensive assessment and evaluation remedy. 67. The LRSD has hired outside consultants as directed by the Court. 68. The PRE staff worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall regarding the Step 2 evaluations with the exception that PRE had no role in classroom 26 observations, conducting focus groups or actual writing of the evaluations. 69. Joshua notes and the Court finds that many of the step 2 program evaluations completed by the outside evaluators remain deficient with respect to program descriptions. (See in particular Year Round Education, 21 st Century Leaming Centers, Read 180, A+ and PreK literacy) 70. The LRSD has not provided either ODM and Joshua any progress reports on any of the program evaluations which it previously completed that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African American. students. 71. Very little progress has been made in improving African American achievement insofar as norm referenced nationally recognized achievement tests are concerned. 72. The eight step 2 evaluations did not comply in important respects with the LRSD own regulation for preparing evaluations. 73. The Court finds that Little Rock has not followed the Court's directive to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum as ordered by the Court, pursuant to the initial agreement by the parties. 7 4. The ODM and Joshua have attempted to assist LRSD in fulfilling its 27 obligations under the Court's Order. They have done this in myriad ways with differing responses at differing times from the senior district administrators. I find that it is necessary for the PRE staff to actively communicate with Joshua and ODM regarding its activities if they are to be of any use in helping to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum. I also find that district counsel's efforts to set parameters for interaction between PRE staff, ODM and Joshua to be inappropriate and contrary to the spirit and letter of the court's orders herein. The Court does not approve of the treatment of the PRE Director by LRSD counsel and senior staff. It warns those parties and the school board that any further obstruction with the Court's Order will be met by a reference for ____ _ contempt of court. While Joshua has sought to have district counsel Heller held in contempt of court for obstruction, the Court will caution Mr. Heller again to \\ \\ cooperate with Joshua and if there are specific problems where strong proof exists that Joshua counsel has violated the Court's Order, notice should be promptly given to Joshua counsel and the Court whereupon a hearing will be scheduled to address the matter. In the meantime, I expect Joshua to continue for the next four years its monitoring role as previously set forth in the June 30, 2004 Order 75. I now address the District's continuing argument that Joshua has been less than diligent in bringing to the Court's attention problems it observed 28 regarding LRSD's compliance with the directives of the Court. The following is a listing of the Joshua's activities from which I conclude that Joshua has been timely, cooperative and non adversarial with respect to its monitoring of the June 30, 2004 Order of the Court. a. Upon the Court Order of June 30, 2006, Chris Heller announced th.at the District would appeal and most likely prevail thereon. The Court then entered an Order requiring that his June 30th Order be followed pendente lite. b. In late July, 2004, Joshua approached ODM with respect to having the LRSD post the PRE Director position. C. In August, 2004, the District posted the position and in October, Dr. DeJarnette was hired. d. Twice in November, 2005, Joshua wrote the District inviting discussion, requesting information and Joshua involvement in developing the process. e. In December, 2005, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette and ODM met at Joshua counsel's office regarding the Court's Orders and Joshua's concerns. f. In January, 2005, Dr. Victoria Bernhardt was hired as a 29 consultant for the purpose of assisting the LRSD in embedding the assessment process into the curriculum. In February, Joshua wrote Dr. DeJamette seeking to be included in the process. This was repeated in March with a request for all information shared with ODM. g. In April, Dr. Bernhardt submitted a training proposal and in May, 2005, Joshua made suggestions to PRE about programs to evaluate. h. In June, 2005, PRE statisticians spent a (training) week in Chico, California. 1. In September, the district submitted its 4th Quarterly Report to the Court and parties. J. In September and October, 2005, Ms. Springer obtained further information about the report from Dr. DeJarnette. This was followed up with a letter request for information dated November, 2005. In October, 2005, the District did not meet its 2005 filing deadlines. k. In November, 2005, the Court held a hearing regarding compliance regarding the step 2 evaluations. In December, 30 2005, Joshua wrote PRE expressing concerns about PRE staffing. Joshua did not receive a reply to its concerns. 1. In January, 2006, Joshua brought to the Court's attention their concerns about the first four step 2 evaluations. m. Ms. Springer met with PRE during evaluation team meetings between January and April, 2006. During this time PRE experienced problems with data gathering and participation in meetings by other evaluation team members. ODM was present during these meetings. n. In April, 2006, Joshua first observed the evaluation team participation to include Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts. o. In May, 2006, upon an evaluation team meeting, Joshua and ODM voiced concerns about embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. p. In June, 2006, at evaluation team meetings, ODM and Joshua repeated their concerns raised in May, 2006. q. Because of the unavailability of District Counsel Heller, on June 21 , 2006, Joshua requested a hearing before the Court 31 regarding implementation problems that were being experienced. On the same day the Court directed a statement in support of the request for hearing. r. On June 28, 2006, Ms. Springer submitted an affidavit of concerns to the Court. s. In July, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette confirmed the substantial accuracy of the Springer affidavit contents. t. On August 1, 2006, the Court directed LRSD to meet with Joshua and ODM to address Joshua's concerns. Before the meeting, Joshua requested the participation of Dr. DeJamette. Mr. Heller refused. The foregoing chronology demonstrates that Joshua was timely in ,: submitting its concerns to LRSD, ODM and the Court. It also demonstrates that Joshua sought to _be fully involved and cooperative with the LRSD' s PRE staff. It further shows how District Counsel obstructed Joshua's involvement in the process.  I further find that the district's responses to the Joshua objections with respect to program evaluations have at no time been valid, that they have been obstructive and constitute evasive and obdurate conduct. It is for these reasons I 32 will award fees and costs for Joshua for having prevailed on the issue of program assessment and evaluation on all issues. ,,,, .).) - - - --- ---- - - --- - ------ - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. Background. BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (''2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Page 1 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 16 2007 OFRCEOF DIIIGREGATION 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 RECEIVED JAN 16 200!7 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Background. DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Pagel of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B. G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully perlormed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17 .1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004 ). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B.G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully performed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17.1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its  2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years- the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the.Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its 2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years - the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its . 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . ... \")(emphasis in original). B. . Waiver and Estoppel. 5. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[l]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD' s interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 21n fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD' s interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . .. . \")(emphasis in original). B. 5. Waiver and Estoppel. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[I]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD' s interpretation of the 2002 order, _it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 2In fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, 'I[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark. Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, \u0026lt;J[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. ' 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"1t has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark . . Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S. W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97-408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S.W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97\"408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJarnette, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJarnette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJarnette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 - Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. 11. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJarnette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJamette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJarnette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJ amette' s belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJ amette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJamette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy ... \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJame~te, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJamette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJamette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. I 1. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJamette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJarnette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJamette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJamette's belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJamette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua .. \" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJarnette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy . . . \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the (2002] Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002] Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual '. matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJarnette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the [2002) Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002) Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual \\ matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJamette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. 13. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJamette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior administrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .. . . [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. 13. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJarnette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. - DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior adIIllnistrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. , DeJamette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .... [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school _{)ortfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho,ol' s mission, vision, beliefs, and ratioriale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the schoor org_anization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11. Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school portfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho?l' s mission, vision, beliefs, and rationale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the school org~ization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11 . Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people ... using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place ... \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achjevement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. In short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Page 11 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people . .. using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place . . . \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achievement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. fu short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Pagellof 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report, \u0026lt;J[ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented - IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (f) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report,\u0026lt;][ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaiuations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (t) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place . capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@j lj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 /s/ Christopher Heller \"Lisa Walters (ADE)\" \u0026lt;Lisa. Walters@arkansas.gov \u0026gt; 01/10/2007 03:26 PM Lisa Walters ADE Attorney's Office -----Original Message----From: Lisa Walters (ADE) To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc bee Subject FW: amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4:82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:01 PM To: ' clerksoffice@are.uscourts.gov ' Subject : amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4 :82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 See attached cover letter and amended notice of filing which you requested. Lisa Walters ADE Attorney\"s Office -----Original Message--- - - From: Toshiba 350 ATT [mailto:ToshibaATT@ADE~CAMPUSl) Sent : Monday, January 08, 2007 1:58 PM To: Lisa Walters (ADE) Subject : Scanned from att350 [LWalters_Mail Scan) 01 / 08 / 2007 14:58 Sc;anned from att350. LWalters_Mail Scan Date: 01/08 / 2007 14: 58 Pages:3 Resolution:200x200 DPI Please see attached PDF for your file. -m D0C070108.pdf MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;8l87 57@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc : Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Docket Correction \" Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/11/2007 at 8:56 AM CST and filed on 1/11/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4090 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4090,26052 ,, MAGIC,,,2005584 Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: [4083) Notice of Filing. CORRECTION : The o.riginal document was submitted in error (contained an incorrect date identifier); the correct document was added to docket entry (4083] , and the docket text was modified to correct the description of the document filed as \"NOTICE of Filing the Project Management Tool for December , 2006\" based on the attached correspondence. (thd) A The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : ~ ocument description: Main Document Original filename : n/a - Electronic 'document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=l/11/2007) [FileNumber=818756-0] [8d484cl6b5ldf4bec702ccb4b6fld02c4c52d7458fa27a43825a6157f84562c8c5618a66d2702dc ec7b8flb9d77d402f7458f4b3ad7e374f0ea77035baffc295)] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate . jones@jlj .com; linda . calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw .net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov , patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol . com; jspringer@gabrielmail . com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by othe r means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street RECEIVED JAN 12 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .lames, Commissioner .Educatii'n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org January 30, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feeJ free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, \u0026amp;~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _Jg~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS . MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented iri 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 mq~th, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1229","title":"Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2006-12-13"],"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","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1229"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LRC 82 --866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR . ROY BROOKS DECEMBER 13TH , 2006 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING'  620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushma.nreporting@aoi.com RECEIVED _IMI 1 0 2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGA\"iiuN MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P . A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK, AR. 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr . Walker . .......................... . Examination by Mr . Heller ........................ . Deposition concluded ..... : ........... . . . .... . ...... . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 73 74 75 3 4 ROY BROOKS PRODUCED, SWORN, AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker, 1723 Broadway, in Little Rock, Arkansas, beginning at 10:10 a . m. on December 13th, 2006, the above-entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by agreement of counsel, at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER : Q State your name . A Roy Brooks. Q Dr. Brooks, you have been deposed before? A Yes. Q I won 't go through the preliminary ' s . When you were hired 5 did you have any experience first of all, in your training -- you do have a doctorate degree in education? A Q A Q A Q A Yes, that's correct. From what institution? Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale . Is that an on-line university? No . You had actual classes? Yes, sir. Q Did you have classes that dealt with evaluation and curriculum? A Q A Q A Q I would think so, yes . You don't recall? Yeah. I see. Undergrad. All right. I take it you don't mind giving us a copy of t his undergraduate transcript and this graduate transcript? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . HELLER : We ' ll see if it's part of his application . may be . BY MR. WALKER : Q Where did you attend college? A Florida . Q Which college? A Florida A\u0026amp;M . Q FAMU? A Uh huh. Q Do you remember my namesake and \"friend down there , Dr . Charles Walker? A No . He was head of the pharmacology department . No. What year did you graduate? '73 . With a major in what? Elementary ed. Were you an honor graduate? No . I see . It Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there . I was happy to get the degree . Did you receive a master's degree? Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 Q From what institution? A Nova Southeastern University. Q What year? A I don't remember . Q Would it have been within three or four years after you graduated from college? A It could have been . I don ' t have that document in front of me . Q I see . Did you graduate with honors from Nova Southeast University with respect to your master ' s degree? A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there too . Are you being facetious? No, I 'm being honest . I had to work hard to get it. Okay. Now, when did you get your doctorate degree? Sometime in the '90 ' s . I don't remember . So that would have been in the last 10 years? Perhaps, yeah. Would it be 10 years or almost 20? It was '90 and it's 2006, that ' s 16, 17 years. Q But you said '90's so I just assumed that it was in mid- 90's, which would have been A Q I think it was earlier than that . I see. Now, have you ever been a superintendent of schools before you came to Little Rock? A Q No . Have you ever written any books on any subject? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No . Q Have you written any articles which appeared in any learning journals? A No . Q Have you published anything under your authorship or name? A Q A Q A Q A Q No, just when I was in school . What was the subject of your Ph . D dissertation? I don ' t remember . Do you have a copy of it? I don ' t think so . Is it capable of being reviewed? Oh , I 'm sure you could pull it up fro~ th~ archives . Of what institution? A The university I just said , Nova Southeast University, the second largest private university in America . Q I understand. Most of the students that attend there are on- line\naren ' t they? A No . It ' s a full university in Fort Lauderdale with football, baseball, soccer, dormitories . Q I see. A Q Go on-line and look it up . Weil, with respect to your dissertation, can you give me any general subject that you addressed in your dissertation? A Mr . Walker, I don't remember . That was a long time ago. don't remember what it was about. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 8 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A You don't recall what your investigation was? I don't remember what that was about. It had something to do with self-esteem or -- I don't remember. Q Were you employed during the time you were obtaining your master's and doctorate degrees? A Yes. Where were you employed? Orange County, Florida. 9 Q A Q Would you tell me your employment history in Orange County, Florida? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I was a teacher . For how many years? 10 or 8. I don't remember exactly. All right. Then what were you next? Assistant Principal. For how many years? A couple. I don't remember exactly. At what school? Chickasaw. Is that an elementary school? Yes. What was your next job there? Principal. Of which school? There were a number of schools. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Tell me the names in order . Tangelo Park. T- A- N-G- E- L-O Park . For how many years? Four or five . I don't remember exactly. All right . That's an elementary school? Yes . And ih~ next one? Catalina . Is that an elementary school? Yes. For how many years? Three or four. I don ' t remember exactly. And the next one? Orange Center. Is that an elementary school? Yes . For how many years? The same. Three or four? Yes . And the next one? I became an area superintendent . What year was that? '96, I think . And in Orange County, were the areas geographically BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arranged? A Yes. Q Were they also grade level arranged? A No. The schools were -- it was geography . Q Did they cover K through 12? A Q A Q A Yes. I see . Your training was in elementary education? Yes . Was your certification in K through 12 as a teacher? No . Q I see . Was your -- all right . So you ' ve never been certified for high school? A Q A Q A Not as a teacher . I see . How many schools were in your area? 34 or 35 . Were most of the elementary? No. Elementary, middle and high school . Q By definition, most of the schools in any district are elementary\naren't they? A Most of them were elementary, yes. Q All right. Now, what was the -- for the Orange County School System what were the demographics of the student body? A For the district? Yes. 11 Q A I would say maybe 25 percent African- American and maybe 15 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 or 20 percent Hispanic and the rest white. Q So your experience as a supervisor is with a majority white school system\nis that correct? A That ' s correct . Q All right . So you have no previous experi ence with a majority black school system? A Orange County was more white kids , yes . Q So your experience is with a predominately white school system\nisn ' t that correct? A As an area superintendent , yes . Q I see . Also as a teacher and principal? All of it is within a majority white school system\nisn ' t it? A No . As a teacher, yes . Q Weren ' t the schools Tangelo Park , Catalina and Orange Center -- A Q A Q A Q No. They were -- Black schools , yes. They were black schools? Yes, sir . I see . What do you call a black school in terms of percentages? A I think if it's a majority. Q A That means 51 percent or more? I think that whatever if there are more black kids than BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 \" II 1 - 2 3 \" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 white kids then I would think it would be the majority of the kids would be black, yes . Q I see . Are there any results that you have that are 13 reduced to writing which reflect the achievement of the students under your leadership at Tangelo Park, Catalina and Orange Center? A I don ' t know exactly what you mean . Q Were any written reports made by the county school system which address the issue of academic achievement of Tangelo Park, Catalina A Oh , yeah. There were standardized tests at all those schools consistent with policy, district policy and Florida law , yes . Q What I 'm asking is is there a report which reflects the relative achievement of those students in which A I'm sure back in the archives that you can go and get the achievement results of those youngsters in those schools . Q I'm not talking about the achievement results. I'm not talking about the test results . Is there any report which sets ' out how well, in writing, how well, comparatively speaking, those children in those three schools did -- A I 'don't know if that exists, Mr . Walker . Q I see . I see. Now, have you been the subject, other than in Little Rock, of any article or comment regarding your qualifications for anything, other than when you came to Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rock in newspapers or otherwise? A Yes. Q Which publications? A The Orlando Sentinel . Q A Q A Q What year was that? It was i n the '90 ' s . Was that when you got ready to leave? No, that was before . Do you recall what the Orlando Sentinel -- was that an editorial or was it just a news report? A There were several editorials but I 'm sure you can pull them up . Q What was the subject of the editorial? A Q A Q A I don't remember the subject . Were you the subject of the editorial? A couple, yes . What do you recall the comments of the editorials to be? The Orlando Sentinel talked about the title was expecting excellence and it chronicled my success in being able to move one of Orlando's poorest and highest minority schools forward. That was just not a editorial, it was a feature article in Florida Magazine, which was a insert into the Orlando Sentinel and distributed to almost, I guess , 700,000 people . Q A I see . Do you recall what year that was? It was in the '90's. I don't remember what year , Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Walker . Q I see . Now, what school was that? A That was Orange Center . I think I have a big copy of that in my office on the wall . Q So you can make that available to us? A Oh, s ure . I ' d love for you to read that. Q All right. Now , can you tell me any programs that you initiated on purpose to address academic achievement of minority students while you were there? On purpose . Not just that were already there or were required by the curriculum. Any new programs that you initiated? A I can ' t recall . Q Did you initiate any new programs that you can identify by name? A Q A Q Academic programs? Yes, sir . I can't I don't remember initiating any . I see. Now, I take it then that basically your forte was to see to it that the teachers did well or better than they were doing before in that school . Is that fair to say? A To supervise the school, yes, as principal. Q I see. And you held the teachers more accountable\nis that fair to say? A I held e veryone accountable. Q I see . Is i t fair to say that most of the teachers in that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 school were white? A I don ' t know what the percentage was. Q Well, you know that more than 51 percent is majority so is it fair to say that most of them were white or were most of them black? A I'd have to see something in front of me to answer that completely . Q You can't recall? A I would think that a majority were probably white . Q I see. Okay . Is it fair to say that in Catalina and Tangelo Park that a majority of those teachers were also white? A Here again , I ' d have to have that in front of me . I can 't recall. Q Do you recall ever being in a situation as a teacher or a principal where a majority of your staff, professional staff , were African-American? A I don ' t recall that, no . Q All right. So your basic experience is also with situations where white people ran everything and did the teaching and everything else\nisn ' t that correct? A Q I'm not clear on your question . Well, they ran the school system\ndidn't they? The board was majority white\nwasn't it? A Q Yes. I see . And the administration was majority white\nwasn't BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? A Q Yes . And the teaching staff where you were when you were principal were majority white? A Q Yes . I see . Were you under court order? Was this district under court order at the time you were area superintendent? A Q Yes . Did you ever make or give any testimony in any proceeding while the case was in court? No . 17 A Q With all the wonderful results that you obtained, you were never called upon to give testimony? A Q No . What was the court order that you were under , to your knowledge? A Q A Q any A Q A Q There was a 1972 court order . Do you know the name of the case? No . I see. Did you have any responsibility for aspect of the court order? No . Did you ever make any report to the court? No. implementing I see. What was the district ordered to do while you were BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the area superintendent? Do you recall? A The court order was in place long before I became area superintendent. Q I understand. What did you understand your duties, under the court order, to be during the time you were area superintendent? A To comply with it . Q Well, I understand. What specifically were you to do in order to comply? A It was a court order that really focused in on attendance zones. Q That ' s right. It didn't have to deal with remediation of achievement disparities\ndid it? A Not that I recall. 18 Q I see. Is it fair to say that the achievement disparities between black and white students in Orange County were comparable to those that you found when you came to Little Rock? A I would think so. Probably everywhere . Q You have no first-hand experience with everywhere\ndo you? You only have first - hand experience with two districts? A Q That's correct. I see. You haven't had any training that allows you to make a judgment about what is everywhere\ndo you? A Q That's correct. Now, do you recall when you came here that you caused the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 removal of a number of principals? A I didn't cause the removal. Q Do you recall that a number of principals left the school system for one reason or another? Do you recall that? A I think there were some retirements and that kind of thing. Q For one reason or another? A Yeah. Q Is it fair to say that they are as follows: The principal at Hall High School\nthe principal at McClellan\nthe principal at Fair\nthe principal at Forrest Park, Forrest Heights Middle School\nthe principal at Cloverdale Middle School? Do you recall those four? A There are different principals at those schools, yes, sir. Q But soon after you got here those principals left\nis that fair to say? A I was here for a year with some of those . Q I understand. Soon after you got here, they left. Is that right? A For one reason or another, yes. Q And they were all African-American? Is that fair to say? A No. Q Was not the principals at Cloverdale, Forrest Heights, Fair and McClellan, the ones who left the district, were they not all African-Americans? A No. McClellan was a white principal. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q Was that Mr . Larry Buck? Yes . Did you not assign Mr . Larry Buck to McClellan? No. That was by Dr . James, I take it? A I wouldn ' t know who assigned him, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Do you recall the name of the principal at McDermott that left? A I don't want to take a guess. I don't recall the name . 20 Q You did replace the principals at McClellan, Fair, Forrest Heights, and Cloverdale in the first year with white persons\ndidn't you? A No. Q Upon the leaving or departure of the principal, which one of those people was replaced by a black person? A All those principals are black at all those schools . Q I'm not talking about now. The immediate replacement upon the departure of the people were white\nweren't they? A No. Q Isn't it true that last year during the 2004 - 2005 school year, all of your secondary principals were white? All of your high school principals were white? A I would have to think of the schools. I don't think so . Q That's fine. Now, Dr. Brooks, how much did you know about the court order in the Little Rock School District at the time BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110  I ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 you were interviewing for the job? A Very little. Q And when did you, after being hired, or have you ever read all the court opinions in this case? A No. Q I see. Can you tell me any of them that you have read? A The first and most important one I read was Judge Wilson 's Order upon my appointment as superintendent . In fact , that was the first document that I received and I think I received that document in Florida , if I recall , before I permanently settled in here in Little Rock . In fact, I remember reading the document on an airplane , I think . Q Do you recall the date of that order? A I think it was 2004 . I think it was either June or July of 2004 . Q Have you read any of the other orders that Judge Wilson or any other judge entered in this case? A I have looked at some of those -- Q No . Read is my question . Have you read any of the other orders of any other persons? A Not with the thoroughness that I've read Judge Wilson ' s Order because Judge Wilson ' s Order was the one that was most important and most pertinent to me. Q I see. Now, the only one that you recall with some recollection is the order of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I I 22 J 1 A That 's correct . 2 Q I see . Now, did you, upon being hired , meet with Mr . 3 Heller? 4 A Soon after I was hired , yes , I got together with Mr. 5 Heller . 6 Q Did you have a discussion regarding the 2004 order with 7 him? 8 A Yes . 9 Q Do you recall who else was present? 10 A I don ' t remember . 11 Q Was anybody else present at the time? 12 A I don ' t remember , Mr. Walker . 3 Q How long did the meeting last? 14 A I don ' t remember, Mr . Walker . 15 Q I see . Was it more than one meeting regarding the 2004 16 order? 17 A I probably met more than one time with Mr . Heller regarding 18 that . 19 Q Do you recall a second meeting? 20 A I recall a number of times talking with Mr\nHeller about 21 the 2004 order . I can't list times, dates, etcetera, etcetera . 22 I've sp'oke with Mr . Heller on a number of occasions. 23 Q Do you make a distinction between meetings and 24 conversations? 25 A I think they are distinctly different. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 23 Q Do you recall more than one meeting regarding the judge 's 2004 order with Mr. Heller? A I remember mult i ple meetings with Mr . Heller regarding that order . Q Where did those meetings take place? A Mo s tly in my office. Q A Q A Were any other people present? I don't remember. Were any Board members present? I don ' t remember . Q Do you recall having any one on one discussions with any Board member regarding the 2004 order? A Yeah , I ' ve talked with the Board members about that order. Q Tell me when you first talked with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the 2004 order . A I don ' t remember exactly . Q Tell me what conversation took place between you and Mr . Rose with respect to the 2004 order . A I think that the fact that the district was still in court came up, if I refall, during my interview . Q I'm talking about meetings after you were hired. Tell me about the conversations you had one on one with Mr . Rose regarding A I can't go back and recall , with as many times as I have interacted with Board meetings, individual times with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specificity in terms of when I talk with a Board member about the order . Here is what I am going to say : I do recall on occasions having spoke with Board members about the order reassuring them that we would do everything we could to comply with the Judge ' s order. 24 Q Let me ask you : Have you created any writings with re s pec t to this r eassurance or which reflects your understanding of the court order? A Q I don't think there is anything that I -- I see. Now , going back to my question : Do you recall any meeting one on one with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the evaluations? A The evaluation of -- Q The evaluation process , yes . Do you recall any one on one meeting with him regarding that? A I don ' t recall . Q I see . That doesn ' t mean you didn't have any\ndoes it? A Q A Q A Q No, it doesn ' t. Did you regularly speak with Mr . Tony Rose? I regularly spoke with each and every Board member. I'm asking about Mr. Tony Rose now. In what regard? Any regard . A Here again, I spoke -- Q That ' s yes or no . Did you regularly speak with Mr. Tony Rose during the time that he was on the Board? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes , as I did with every other Board member. I see. Have you regularly spoken with Mr. Armstrong? Since Mr . Armstrong has been on the Board, I have spoken with him by phone a number of occasions . I think we ' ve eaten lunch at least once, maybe twice . I think we ate lunch at a school together. Q I see. Have you ever discussed with Mr . Armstrong the subject of program evaluation? A Not specifically . 25 Q Have you ever discussed with him this Board resolution that was dated November 16th, 2006, which is Exhibit 8 to the previous deposition? Have you ever discussed that with -him? A Before the Board votes on anything , I call Board members to Q I 'm not asking you about A Let me finish this . Q Go ahead. I'll let you finish. A I call Board members and I ask Board members if they have any questions about any of the agenda items . That has been my longstanding practice. The Board members are provided with the i -nformation and they read it, review it, and if they have questions then they ask me . Q My question again is: Did you have any discussion with Mr . Armstrong regarding this resolution before the Board meeting? A Not one on one with Mr . Armstrong . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 - ~ 26 1 Q I see . How did you get this resolution? Did you develop 2 it yourself? 3 A It was part of what we needed to do . 4 Q Did you develop it yourself? How did you get it is my 5 question . I 'm not asking why yo had it . How did you get it is 6 my question. 7 A It was through our attorney. 8 Q Did it come to you by letter or by e-mail? 9 A I don 't remember. It could have been e-mail. 10 Q Did you send it to the Board members the day you got it? 11 A I don 't know if I sent it the day I got it, no . I don't 12 know if I send anything everyday. 3 Q Well, it's written in here , \"it is so resolved this 16th 14 day of November\". 15 A They all got it. 16 Q Did they get it before the meeting? 17 A Yes, sir . 18 Q How much in advance of the meeting did they get it? 19 A They got it, I think, 48 hours before. 20 Q Now, at the time that you sent this resolution did you send 21 a whole volume, a large volume of other documents? 22 A An- agenda packet. It's on-line, yes. 23 Q It's your practice, isn't it, to give them the agenda 24 packet two days before the meeting? Is that fair to say? 25 A That's the law . You have 48 hours. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Q What is the time that Board members have to review these documents? 48 hours? A That and somet i mes less if it is an emergency . Q Was there any emergency involving this? A It was part of the agenda packet . I don't know if an emergency meet i ng was called because of that . Q Now, did you tell anybody on the Board what the purpose of this resolution was? A It ' s self- explanator y. Q No . Did you tell anybody what the purpose of this resolution was? A I don ' t recall. Q I see . Now , did you know what was happening in PRE as of November 16th, 2006? A What do you mean what was happening? Q Did you know what was taking place within the department of PRE during that time? A What was taking place? Q Yes. A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q Let me ask you : You were aware that there had been for much of the year a number of evaluation team meetings regarding PRE matters and evaluations? You were aware of that\nweren't you? A Sure . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , 25 Q A Q A Q A Did you ever attend one of those team meetings? No . I see . Yes . Is there a reason you chose not to? What is that reason? I had staff members attend . Q I see. With this being so important , is there any reason 28 that you, as a CEO, would not come to not one of those meetings? A I tell you , there are a lot of meetings that I didn ' t attend but I had staff there. Q Well, I notice that you regularly met with the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A Pardon? Q You regularly met with people from the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn ' t you? A We're a member of the Chamber of Commerce . Q I understand. But you regularly met with the executive director and the president of the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A I have met with members of the Chamber of Commerce, yes . Q Name each one of them, please . A I met with the executive director, previous executive director. I don't think I met him with just one on one and I remember being in a meeting with Jay Chesher (phonetic sp. ) Q Is it fair to say that you met with them at least every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 month? A Q I don ' t think I met every month , no, sir . But pretty regularly, wouldn't you say? 29 A I don ' t think -- I wouldn't characterize it , Mr . Walker , as regularly . Q How often would you say you met with them in the last 12 months? A I would say that I met with Mr . Chesher may two or three times , along with other superintendents . Q A Oh, you were not the only person meeting with them? No . The last two or three meetings I think we met with the superintendent of Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock . Q Did you discuss the subject with those people release from court supervision? A Q A Q My discussions with those That's yes or no. - - people was regarding Please listen to my question . I didn't ask what all of them were. I asked if you discussed the subject of release from court supervision . A The last time the three superintendents met with Jay Chesher, I think that did come up. Q Did you ever tell anybody what the advantages to being out of court were? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Who is anybody? Anybody in the world. Anybody? A Q A I think one of the most important advantages is is that for the first time the court is not really supervising the district but the Board of Directors are supervisini the district. I would think with the historic hoopla about a majority black board that those members would readily embrace the fact that now we can supervise this district without the intervention of the court, without the intervention of the lawyers, etcetera, etcetera . I think it would be something that would be historic in nature. Q That's the only one that you can come up with? A I think that's a very important one. Q What are the disadvantages to court release? A I think the public . I think the expense . I think that getting -- Q A You said the expense is a disadvantage? I think there are expenses associated with this court supervision. We're paying lawyers -- Q Let me go back. I'm asking you about the difference between a pro and a con . I'm asking you what are the disadvantages. Do you know what is meant by disadvantage? A Q A Yes .. What are the disadvantages of getting out of court? The disadvantages? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Yeah . I think there are advantages -- Q I'm asking only about disadvantages . 31 A I am not going to suggest to anyone that not getting out of court is not a good thing . Getting out of court is a good thing . Q You see no disadvantages? A Personally, I think it would be a glorious day to get out of court. Q My question is : Do you see any disadvantage in A I only see advantages in getting out of court . Q Let me ask you this : If you lose 30 million dollars a year or 40 million dollars a year, what is the advantage of that? A That is a number that I ' ve heard you throw around and I don't think Q Wait a minute . Let ' s assume if you lose 10 million , whatever million, what is the disadvantage of losing that money? A We don ' t know how much we'll lose if we lose and we don't know when we'll lose it . I think that that is something that people have overstated and exaggerated and it's speculation . Q Just a moment . Have you sought to conduct a study to determ~ne what the loss will be -- A Q A I've done no study . --and how it will be made up and from where it will come? We've done no study . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' -~ 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . A No , sir . Q Now, what will be the disadvantage in losing the magnet schools? What will be the advantage in losing the magnet schools? A I think the magnet schools are very important. Q What would be the advantage in losing them? A I don ' t want to think about losing them, sir . Q I see . But you haven ' t considered that\nhave you? A I don ' t think we ' ll lose them . Q Have you considered that? A We ' ve -- Q That ' s yes or no . 32 A We ' ve considered that we would have to really find ways to continue what I think is something very important . Q Have you had a discussion with Mr . Heller about that subject? A We've talked about the magnet schools , yes . Q Now, have you reported to the Board the results of those conversations with Mr . Heller on retention of and continuation of magnet schools upon court - - A No, there hasn't been any reason to do that. Q All right . Have you - - what is the advantage of eliminating the M to M transfer program? A Here again, it - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 q 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q What is the advantage? The advantage? Yes . What is the advantage of doing that? A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q You don't understand? You're a superintendent and I am 33 sure that is a simple question . What is the advantage of losing the M to M transfer programs? A Well , the advantage would be that some districts have a lack of kids- - Q A Your district . --going from majority to minority schools and being provided with the transportation. Q So the advantage would be to put them back in their neighborhoods? A I don't think that will happen. Q Well, just a moment . What will happen upon the loss of M to M funds by this district if you chose to let that happen? What would be the advantage of that? A I don't see that happening . Q You don't see that happening? Hasn't Mr. Heller informed you and you have informed others that you may expect to lose M to M funding? That's yes or no. BY MR . HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 34 Have you not been informed that you will soon, by the 2007 year, lose M to M funding? A I don't think that taxpayers Q Just yes or no . A I have to -- Q I'm not asking you about what you think. I'm asking you about your information now. Your thoughts -- A Nothing is going to last forever. Jhis funding one day is going to go away. Q Just a moment. Have you been. infermed that you will lose M to M funding at the beginnirig of the 2007- 2008 school year? A r don't think a decision has been made about that. Q Have you been so informed? Yes or no? A No. That would be speculation. Q In the event that M to M funding is lost, do you have a plan for replacing that money? A We have no plan, Mr . Walker. Q In the event that those children are no longer able to go their regular schools, where will they be assigned? Do you have a plan for that? A We have no plan . Q I see. Who will be the children most disadvantaged by being removed from their M to M transfer schools? race of the students? A I'm not sure. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 What is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Who are the students being transferred from tl School District to Pulaski County now under the M to M transfer rules? A Q Black children. Which means that if they have to, if they are no longer able to go to the county schools under M to M then that means they ' ll h ave to return to Little Rock\ndoesn ' t it? A And we will get the funding for those youngsters . Q Do you know how much funding that will take? A Whatever the foundation funding is per student. Q No . I 'm asking you : Do you know how much funding that will take? A Q A Q Oh, no, I don't know that . Do you know the schools to which they would be assigned? No, I don ' t . No , sir. Have you asked Mark Millholland to run an analysis of cost benefit to that endeavor? A No. Q A Have you had cabinet discussions regarding that subject? No . Q I see . Have you had discussions with Tony Rose and Mr . Brock regarding that subject? A No. Q Now, have you had discussions before she became president of the Board in the last year with Dr . Katherine Mitchell on any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 1.5 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 Ill 23 24 25 36 subject? A Oh , sure . Q Is it fair to say that she told you in no uncertain terms that you were not treating the teachers of the district fairly? Did she tell you that one on one? A I don ' t recall if she used those words, no . Q Did she tell you that your performance as superintendent was sorely lacking? A I don ' t remember that . Q Did she oppose your getting a raise? A She probably did. Q Probably? Do you know? A I ' d have to have it in front of me . I don't know. Q When you say she probably did, did she not tell you face to face that she felt that you were adversely impacting upon black children and poor children in southwest Little Rock? A No. Q She did not? A She ' s never told me that. Q Do you play tennis with her? A If she'd give me a call, I'd love to play tennis with Dr . Mitchell . Q I understand. Do you play tennis with Mr . Berkley regularly? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 37 1 Q Y' all go to eat every so often after playing tennis? 2 A No, we don't. 3 Q Y'all don ' t socialize afterwards? 4 A No. 5 Q You don ' t socialize with Mr . Berkley at all? 6 A I've been to Mr . Berkley 's house, yes . 7 Q Okay. Now, how many times have you been to Mr . Walter 8 Hussman's house? 9 A I don't recall going to Mr . Hussman ' s house . 10 Q Not at all? 11 A I don't recall . 12 Q You don't recall? 3 A No . 14 Q Are you saying you never did? ) 15 A No, I haven ' t been 16 Q How many ~imes do you regularly meet with Mr . Hussman? 17 Have you in the last year met with Mr. Hussman? 18 A I've met with Mr. Hussman on several occasions . 19 Q Is several more than five or six or just one or two? 20 A I don't kn9w exactly how many times, Mr. Walker. 21 Q How many times have you met with his staff? Somebody other 22 than him representing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? 23 A I don't recall meeting with anyone else. 24 Q You don't remember meeting with Mr . Paul Greenburg? 25 A I do remember that, yes . - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537 - 5110 - I 1 -- 2 3 \" 4 5 - 6 - 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 Q All right. You understand he ' s on Mr . Hussman ' s staff? A Yes. Q You do recall meeting with him and Hussman together\ndon't you? A yes, that ' s correct . Q On more than one occasion\ndon't you? A No, only one occasion . Q What was the subject of that meeting? A We talked about, I think, the district's reorganization , if I remember correctly. I don't think Mr . Hussman was there . In fa~t , Mr . Hussman was not there . Q I see . Did Mr. Hussman privately fund yo~r merit pay initiative? A The first year Mr . Hussman did fund that, yes , sir. Q And did you ask the Board to approve him doing that at the time that it was done? A The second year, yes . Q No , the first year . A The first year I wasn't here . Q Well, was that done through the Public Education Foundation? A The first year? Q Yes . A Yes, it was. Q Now, the Public Education Foundation was not really a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private organization\nwas it? A Yes, it's a private organization . Q But y ' all paid from this district payroll at least one of the staff members\ndidn't you? A A portion of her salary, yes . Q You paid all of her salary for three years\ndidn't you? A I don ' t remember paying all of it . I do remember paying a portion of it . Q And you do remember paying a portion of the salary of other people\ndon ' t you? A No , I don't recall that . Q Isn ' t it true that you let them bill you on a monthly basis for at least one- third of their salary and Mr . Millholland regularly cuts the check upon presentation of an invoice? A I only recall one employee that we were some how or another helping with her salary . Q Does the Public Education Foundation have any voice or role in the evaluation process? A Not in Little Rock Public Schools. Q How is Project Sword being evaluated? A Project Sword is not being evaluated . Project Sword is Q That's all I asked . You said it's not being evaluated. Now, does the Little Rock Public Education Foundation have interaction with the teachers involved in Project Sword? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 I I 1 I 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q And who is the principal person from the Little Rock Public Education Foundation who interac~s with your teachers from the Public Education Foundation? Who is that person? A You'd have to ask Olivine Roberts . I'm not sure I know . Q Are you on the board of the Public Education Foundation? A Yes . Q Is the Public Education Foundation subject to the pol i cies, rules and requirements of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A They're independent . Q I see . So the Board cannot determine what the Public Education Foundation ' s role with it is\nis that your position? A No . Public Education Foundation is a separate entity. It ' s not regulated by the school board of Little Rock . Q Now , is there any board resolution authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive public funding from the Little Rock School District? A Any what? Q Has the board approved any regulation authorizing the Public Education Foundation to get funding directly or indirectly from the Little Rock School District? A The Public Education Foundation -- Q That's yes or no. A - - has contributed magnificent Q Listen to my question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTI-NG (5 01 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay . Q Is there anything authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive funds from the Little Rock School District? A Not that I 'm aware of . Q Are you aware that regularly every month Mr . Millholland cuts a check to the Public Education Foundation? A He no longer does that . Q When did he stop doing that? Last month? A Q It could have been . Why did he stop doing that? 41 A Because it was an agreement that cince the Public Education Foundation got solid enough that they would assume that responsibility . Q I see . Now, have you explained the role, including Mr. Armstrong, the relationship between the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District? Have you done so? A I asked Lisa Black -- Q I'm asking if you have done so . A I wouldn't be the one to do that, Mr. Walker . Q I see. Now, Ms. Black doesn't work for the school district\ndoes she? A Q No, sir . -She did until last month\ndidn't she? About the time of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ this resolution? Ms . Black didn't work for the school district . She was just paid by the district? A portion of her salary, yes . Did she have a written contract with the district? I don ' t know that. You'd have to ask Mr . Millholland . You don ' t recall seeing the contract? No, sir . 42 A Q A Q A Q A Q All right . That's fine . Let me ask about this evaluation . Before I get to that part , have you had occasion to refer to present counsel as a parasitic lawyer? A I would never do that, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Are you aware of any payments that have been made to the Joshua counsel in this matter in the last two to three years? A Only what I ' ve seen on paper . Q Have you seen anything on any paper indicating that we've received any payment for cost or fees in that period of time? A What period of time? Q Between the time you got here and now . A Q Since I've been here, I haven't seen anything, sir . Now, do you contend that you have the authority to hire lawyers for the district? Do you contend that you have that authority? A Yes, I ho~e so . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q Is there a writing that sets the terms and conditions under which you may hire lawyers? A There is a policy, yes. Q Does it set the hourly pay and things like that or is it subject to bidding? A I'm not sure. Q I see. Let me go to direct matters . Is there a difference, in your opinion, between of policy of the school district and a regulation of the school district? A Yes . Q A Q What is the difference? A policy needs Board approval. What about a regulation? A I don't think a regulation needs approval of the Board . can be part of a policy. Q I see . Is there a process -- let me understand it . One needs approval from . the Board and one doesn't. What is the purpose of a policy? It A The purpose of a policy is something you abide by . It's a rule. Q A Q What is the purpose of the rule? To make sure there is consistency in what you do. Doesn't it set the standard for the district as to what conduct may be engaged in by the administration? A I hope so. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 44 I see . Isn't a regulation something to implement a policy? It can be part of a policy, yes. But a regulation itself is not a policy\nis it? A A regulation is separate from a policy but it can be part of a policy . Q Is Policy IL-Ra policy or part of a policy? A That is a Board policy that was approved by the Board . It is the comprehensive assessment process. Q I'll show you a policy that says IL-R. Is that the Board policy? A Q A Q A Q A Q It seems as if it's the policy, yes. Do you know whether that was approved by the Board? Yes, it was. When was it approved? December 2004. Were you present at the time? Yes. So there should be a motion and a second and all the other things that.approves it in that process? A I'm sure the minutes would reflect that. Q Now, if this is a policy it is supposed to be posted to the website\nisn't it? A It is posted. BY MR. HELLER: Should we make that an exhibit t.o his deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so we can see what we're talking about? BY MR. WALKER: Yes. We'll make copies and give it to you. BY MR. WALKER: Q Now, is there a difference between the program evaluation 45 agenda, which also has JL-R as its code and what will be to your deposition Exhibit 3, is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference? A Q is? A Q I don't know what this is. In other words, Exhibit 3, you 're not aware of what that I'm familiar with this , yes . And you're not aware whether Exhibit 3 is posted on your website? A I'm only familiar with this, yes. Q So it's your position that the document that is entitled as . Comprehensive Program Assessment Process is posted, not the Program Evaluation Agenda\nis that right? A I'm aware of this, yes. Q And you 're referring to Exhibit 2, Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A Yes . Q Thank you. Now, you don 't know what number three is at all? You've never seen it before? A Not to my recollection. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 - ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see. A I see a lot of stuff. Q Let's get to your testimony about evaluation. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirements with respect to program evaluation? 46 A Mr. Armstrong met with legal counsel the first week or two he was on board . Q My question is you. I'm talking about you. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirement? A I have not talked-with Mr. Armstrong about that document, no. Q I see . Have you heard Mr. Armstrong express in a public place -- you were aware that he ran for office? A Yes. Q And were you aware that he ran for office in part for the purpose of focusing attention upon the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? Were you aware of that? A I heard him talk about the achievement of students, yes. Q Okay. At the time that he was talking about the achievement of students, is it or is it not to true that you were aware that I was in the audience? A I'm not aware of that, no . Q Did he ask that Dr. DeJarnette or did any Board member ask that Dr . DeJarnette provide information to the Board regarding BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation? A Q Dr. DeJarnette did report to the Board . My question was: Was this on the initiative of some Board member? A Q I 'm not sure I follow your question . Do you not recall sending an e - mail to Dr . DeJarnette indicating that the Board members had some questions regarding prQgram evaluation? A Q Yes . And is it fair to say that that e--mail was approximately dated November 3rd, 2006? A Q I would have to see it but -- If the Board members requested information from Dr. DeJarnette regarding program evaluation, would it have been appropriate for her to have responded at the public meeting to their concerns? A Q If they asked that, yes. I see. You were aware that they did ask it\nisn ' t that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes . Which Board member asked you to ask that? I think there were two . Who were they? Dr. Mitchell and Mr . Berkley. I see. Now, did they tell you why they wanted her to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 47  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 address the issue of program evaluation? A I don't recall. Q That was just in October or November. Are you saying that less than six weeks ago you have no recollection of what they told you? A Dr . Mitchell and Mr . Berkley asked for the report I believe because there was some disagreement in some information that had been shared _with them, with the whole Board, in factj I think . Q I'll show you an e - mail dated November 2nd and a response on November 6th regarding the evaluation. Do you recall that? November 2nd from 'you . It says, \"Olivine , Please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the Board has requested a compliance reme9y update at the November 9 agenda meeting. That presentation should also involve other members of PRE. Everyone in the department should be available that evening \". A Yes. Q You sent that? A Yes, I did. Q- Did yo_u expect her to give an honest appraisal or presentation to the Board of Directors at that time? A I would hope so. Q I see . Now, did you inform the Board, the other Board members, that the request for Dr. DeJarnette to appear before it had come from at least two of them? A They were there that night . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 49 Q I understand they were there that night but did you , before they got there, inform them that the Board members had initiated the request that Dr . DeJarnette make an appearance and presentation to the Board? A I didn't see it necessary . They were all there that night . Q I see . But you understood that at that meeting that night that Mr . Baker Kurrus raised the question of Dr. DeJarnette coming directly to the Board with her presentation. Do you recall that? A No, I don ' t recall that. I think that ' s taken out of context. I think what Mr . Kurrus said that night, as I recall, was Dr . DeJarnette providing information to Board members and everybody else without going through appropriate protocol. Q All right . What was the appropriate protocol after the Board requested the update? A Q I think we ' re . talking about two different things. Tell me what the protocol was that she was required to follow according to Mr. Kurrus . A I think we're talking about two different things. We need . to clarify - - Q was A Q I'm talking about Mr. Kurrus' response . Your answer to me Are you talking about Mr. Kurrus' response that night? Yes, that night. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 -23 24 25 I I A At the Board meeting? Q Yes. You're saying that Mr. Kurrus was dealing with protocol\nis that correct? A Yes. Q What did he understand, according to what you understood, the proper protocol to have been? A To go through the proper chain of command . Q What was that? A Dr. Roberts. Q And then whom? A Mr. Hattabaugh. Q And then whom? A Me. Q Before going to the Board? A Before presenting to the Board? Q Yes. A We're talking about information. That information was shared that was inconsistent with the chain of command and protocol. Q What information was shared with the Board that was not shared with Dr. Roberts or Mr. Hattabaugh or you by Dr . DeJarnette? 50 A I'm not sure I know what information you're talking about. You tell me what information and I could -- Q You're saying that she did not f o llow protocol and that she 9USHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 went directly to the Board\nis that correct? A Q Yes . So what information did she present to the Board that had 51 not previously been given to you , Dr . Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts? A You have to help me here . Tell me exactly what information are you referring to and then I can help you , then I can answer your question . Q You ' re saying that when she went to the Board directly she did follow protocol , according to Mr . Baker Kurrus . Now , what information did she provide to the Board that had not been previously provided to you by her? What information? A Did she provide - - Q To the Board that had not been previously provided to you . A She sent a letter to the Board that I had never seen before. Q A Q A Q Was it dated after November 2nd? I don't remember what date it was. And what did the letter say? I don't remember exactly . What do you understand the content or the substance of the letter to have said? A I think the substance of the letter was to imply that the Board had not been given all of the information which was false and erroneous and to also suggest that what was turned in was not factual and accurate, which was also false and erroneous . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 Q I see . It was turned in to whom? A Provided to the Board in a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell . Q I see . Now, so you're saying that she should not have written a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell? A I'm not saying she shouldn't have written the letter . Q You ' re saying that she should have provided accurate information? A I'm saying that her actions with that information going to the Board after something had been submitted to you and the Court and everyone else gave me reason to believe that something improper was going on here. Q What was improper that was going on? A To send a letter to the president of the Board and to other Board members that had very little or no factual basis. Q Let ' s just deal with that for a moment. What was it that had no factual basis? A I think the letter and report -- Q Just the contents of the letter as you recall it . Just identify the things that -- A I can ' t identify the specifics of that letter. If you put it in front of me - - Q All right . Since I don't have that letter can you tell me whether she indicated that program evaluations had not been embedded in the curriculum? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I don't have the letter in front of me. Did she indicate that program evaluations had not been embedded in the assessment and evaluation process? A I don't know if that was in the letter . It was not accurate. 53 Q I see. Tell me this: Has program assessment been embedded, in your opinion , in the fabric of the school district? A I think that - - Q A Q That's yes or no. Yes. All right . Tell me how it has been embedded, please. A I think it's a part of our process to use data and to look r at programs in terms of whether or not they are effective to determine if kids are learning . Q All right. Tell me what is your definition of embedded in the process . A Being able to provide data and information to determin~ the effectiveness of the programs, particularly those programs that were a part of the Court order, to determine whether or not we're getting the desired results. Q How do you embed something? I'm not talking about how you use it. How do you embed it? How did you expect it to be embedded? A You embed it by it becoming a part of the actual pr0cess that you use to determine what you do. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 54 Tell me how the process is embedded in the school district at this time. A I think it's embedded because we have data now . We have information that can be used to determine whether or not something is being effective and, if it is, then certainly we want to continue to do it. Q A Where are those data at this moment? I'm talking about data as it relates to where kids are, test scores, etcetera. Q Where are those data maintained? I'm using data plural and that's why I'm saying are. A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Data is everywhere. Data is Just everywhere? Yeah. All right. It's at the schools. It's at the district level. I see. Now, is there a central source where it is? I think we're working to do that . There is a warehouse But you haven't done it? I think to a degree we have. I understand. What is the status of that at this time? What is the status of what you've just described at this time? A I think it's good. Q Good doesn't mean anyt hing to me. Is it complete? Is the data storage -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 -5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I don ' t think that nothing is as it relates to continuous improvement is ever complete. You continue to work . You continue to improve . 55 Q Doctor , is there a data warehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think there ' s a data warehouse that can provide the information that we need . Q Is there a data wa rehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think that there is a data warehouse that we can still work and make better . Q A Make better? Yes , sir . Q Going back to your memo dated November 2nd . Did Dr. Olivine Roberts tell you that she had asked Dr . DeJarnette to respond to the Board? A I would think she did . This is what she was asked to do . Q Is this the letter that Dr . DeJarnette sent in response to Dr . Mitchell ' s request that is dated November 3rd? Do you recall that? BY MR. HELLER : I ' ll object to the form of the question . recall anything about Dr . Mitchell ' s letter . BY MR. WALKER : Well, the request for Dr. Mitchell is the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I don ' t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 question. BY MR. BROOKS : This is interesting because I've never seen this letter . BY MR . WALKER : Q Can you tell me anything in that letter -- first of all , should that letter first have gone to Dr . Roberts for approva l? A Apparently it didn ' t . Q No . Should it have, according to protocol? A I think I would have , yes. She should have been aware of that. Q Is there anything in writing that requires that that level of protocol be-applied? A Yes, the chain of command . Q Is the chain of command in writing? A Q Yes , it ' s the organizational chart . Well , that ' s the chart but the chart just shows who reports to whom\ndoesn ' t it? A It certainly does . Q I see . Now , did you before that time ever require that any letter that came from Dr . DeJarnette be first given to Dr. Roberts? A I would hope so if it ' s going to the Board . Q If it's going anywhere is there a requirement that she cannot directly communicate to those persons that she feels BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessary, that ~s Dr . DeJarnette, that she feels necessary to be responded to? A I think this was a very aifferent circumstance here . 57 Q So you're saying that she should, after you have requested that she make a report to the Board , you are taking the position that she should have gone directly to Dr . Mitchell? A This was a situation where Dr. DeJarnette provided information that was not accurate and it was not proper . Q What was the information in that letter that you recall was not accurate? A I don't have it . Q Now, at the time that she sent this , she sent it to Mr . Heller\ndidn ' t she? A Q Mr . Heller has been copied. He ' ll have to answer . Now, she indicated first that she thought that there was some important information that the Board had not received directly from PRE on some occasions . A Q A Yes . Was that improper for her to say? And it was not factual . Q Well, how do you know that the Board had received information that all the Board members had received information directly from PRE? A I can only say that since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information direct from PRE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 on some occasions that this unusual delivery should be. That's not true . Q How do you know it IS not true? A All information relative to -- Q How do you know it I S not true? A Pardon me? Q How do you know it's not true? BY MR . HELLER: Let him answer . BY MR . WALKER: Q I'm not talking about what you normally do. You say you give information out that is given to you but now how do you know that it's not true that the Board did not receive some important direct information? How do you know that's not true? A No one has ever told me that the Board has not received all important information as it related to this compliance issue . Q All right . I'll just go to the next one. \"One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update\" . Was the last quarterly written update provided to the Board, the one dated September 1, 2006? That's yes or no. A Q A Q Here again, I -You don't know? (No audible response) All right. The second sentence -- is it true that you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 don't know? Is that fair to say? A I wouldn't say that . One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive the department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update Q Did you provide the Board the last written quarterly update dated September 1, 2006? That 's yes or no . A I would think so, yes . Q You would think so? A Q Yes. You don ' t know. A Yes . Q Okay. The version delivered to the superintendent's office for the Board's review is Appendix A. The version submitted to ODM omitted all of Section Band much of Section C\nisn ' t that correct? A What is correct? Q That there -- first of all, the version that was delivered by her to you all had been edited and then the edited version was submitted to ODM\nisn't that correct? A The version that was submitted was an accurate, factual version upon which Dr. DeJarnette, as I understand it, was in a meeting and agreed Q Please listen to my question . You had two different versions of this report\ndidn't you? A There was only one version submitted. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 Q Listen to my question. It is true that there were two different versions of this report\nisn't that correct? A There was only one version submitted -- BY MR. HELLER: Listen to his question . BY MR. WALKER: Q There were two different versions of this report\nwasn't there? A Yes. Q All right . The one that was submitted to you was given to Mr . Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A Q It was just not Mr. Heller. Whoever . But it was given to Mr. Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A It was just not Mr . Heller. Q Who else edited it? A It involved Dr . Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and I think input from other members of the PRE staff that had a different opinion about what was in this document and Dr . DeJarnette. It was just not Q Let me ask you: It is true that the version that she submitted to your office was not given to the Board\nisn't that correct? A Q Which version? The first version was edited, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 -5 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q And it was not given to the Board? A Exactly . We ' re not going to give the Board unfactual information . Q All right . Now , the first one she says , \"On these pages PRE described obstacles to the district's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its program\". A That ' s not true. 61 Q She says , \"it ' s omission from the update allows a reader ' s false i mpression that the district has progressed further than it has \". Now, is that not a conclusion that perhaps reasonable people can disagree with? A No, that ' s not true . Q What is not true? A Q A Q A What you just read. Well, it was the description That ' s her opinion . I understand . But it's not true . Q Isn ' t that what the Board members requested was her opinion? A Q A No . Let me ask you this - - The Board members expected factual information . It was her opinion. It was not the opinion of Or . Olivine Roberts. It was not the opinion of Hugh Hattabaugh. It was not the opinion of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our attorney and it was not the opinion of members in the PRE Department who work with her . This was her opinion . Q A Q Wasn't she -- Her opinion only. Wasn ' t she entitled to give, as a director of that department, her opinion to the Board? That's yes or no. A Q A No . All right . That ' s fine. Now Everybody has an opinion. We want facts given to the Board. Q Now, if the Board asks for opinions, isn't she obliged to give the opinion? A Facts. That's what we give to the Board . I can give an opinion to the Board. You can give an opinion. Q If the Board asks for an opinion -BY MR. HELLER: Just answer the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q If the Board asks for an opinion from one of your staff members regarding that person's best professional judgment -- A Then that's fine. Q Isn't that what the Board asked? A Not from her, sir. Q They did not? A No, sir. This is a very important document. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Now , \"another reason for submitting this document to you is a probable absence by two of our department ' s members on November 9\". Is that correct? A I think there were a couple of people out for whatever reason or another . Q I see . So you object to her conclusion that the district may give, by what it is submitted, a false impression that the district has progressed further than it , in fact, has? A I object to anyone in the organization who is producing and giving a document that is not factual . Q Now , has any of the other quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A Q We review all the quarterly reports . Listen to my question . Had any of the previous quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A I 'm sure someone has . If it wasn't Mr. Heller, it was someone else . Q Did you direct Mr . Hattabaugh or Mr . Heller to edit this _,,)\nreport that had been delivered to you by Dr . DeJarnette? A I asked Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and Mr. Heller to make sure and assure me that the information that we were going to submit to the Board for approval to be submitted to the Court was accurate and was truthful, yes, I did that . Q Isn't it true that Mr . Heller informed you and other people that it wasn't that the information was not accurate, it was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that it was unnecessary to provide to the Court? A Q There was some information Listen to my question . BY MR . HELLER : Let him answer the question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A There was not only information that was not necessary, there was information that was not accurate and there was information that was not factual . Q What information was not accurate? A Some information regarding the Arkansas Department of 64 Education , some information regarding the programs, some information regarding Tetra data as it relates to business objects was not only not factual but it was untruthful and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. I was not happy about it. Q Where does she say anything in here about Tetra data? A That was all a part of the report that you were asking me about. Q All right. So that was in the initial report\nis that fair to say, that was taken out by Mr . Heller? A Mr . Heller did not just alone do that. Q A Can you tell me Let me finish. It was -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I understand what your answer is . Now, can you tell me what portions of the report were edited by Dr. Roberts? A It was a team effort. Q A Q Can you tell me? Dr. Roberts -- Please listen to my question. 65 A --Mr. Hattabaugh, Mr . Heller, people in the PRE Department all working together to make sure that the information that was provided to the Board was accurate and was factual because this was a very important document. It's not one person that Dr. DeJarnette has tried to create that really is all encompassing to do this. That's not how we operate in this district. I'm sorry people felt that way. BY MR. HELLER: Just answer his question. Do you know any particular part that Dr. Roberts edited? BY MR . WALKER: Q A Q Do you know what part of the report -I wasn't in the meeting, no. I see. Did anybody ever report to you the parts that they individually edited? A Not on an individual basis, no. Q I see. She submitted one report and that was edited and then the edited report was sent to the ODM and it would be useful for the Board to have both reports\nthat's what she said BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 wasn't it? A That's what she said in the letter . Q And you're saying that she should not have told the Board that there were two reports? You ' re saying that\naren't you? A Absolutely, because one report -- Q That 's fine . A -- was not accurate . Q All right . And she's saying that because one report has an commission it allows the false impression that the district has progressed further than it has . That's what she said\nright? And you disagree with that? A In the letter, yes . Q I see . All right . Now, you ' re saying that she should not have told the district that one report may give a false impression? She should not have said that to the Board\nis that your position? A If it were not true . Q All right. Isn't it for the Board to determine whether or not one report gave a false impression rather than the other? Isn't that the Board's duty? A The Board relies on us, the staff, to be able to make sure that information we bring to them is accurate and is factual. Q A Q Now, you understand that -I hope they do. --the present Board members have questioned your judgment, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 some of them , both in the election and thereafter? You understand that\ndon't you? You don ' t understand that? A I understand it and that ' s fine . That ' s their opinion . Q Now , didn't they tell you that they wanted to get this information and that was after the e lection? Di dn ' t they tell you that . they wanted to find out what Dr . DeJarnette was actually saying be fore a court date was actually attended? A That ' s when we -- 67 Q And if they asked what i s the status and they wanted to get her view, as opposed to yours , is there some reason that you would disallow that? A It's not a view. It ' s a staff working together . It ' s many people making sure that the information provided is accurate . Not one person -- if the Board wants to believe one person then that ' s their opinion . Q That's right. But now the Board, if ,they had wanted to have Dr . Ed Williams' view , they could have asked for that\ncouldn ' t they? A I think they asked for that . Q Well, did they ask for that - - they asked for Dr . DeJarnette's view\ndidn ' t they? A The presentation should involve other members of the PRE staff . BY MR . HELLER : We're two hours into a 15 to 30 minute deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now. BY MR. WALKER : Well, let me just sort of finish. BY MR . WALKER: Q You do acknowledge that it was within their prerogative to ask her any question they wanted to\nisn't that correct? A Oh, sure . Q I see. And if they had asked the question were there two reports and she had said yes, there would have been no problem with that\nisn't that correct? A Yeah . Q And if she had said that the matter had been edited and that it gives a false impression, there would have been nothing wrong with that, in her opinion? A In her opinion, yes . Q And then you would have been in a position -to state your contrary opinion to the Board\nwouldn't you? A I think that happened . Q When have you stated your contrary opinion to the Board? A The revised repor~. Q The revised report? A Yes. Q So that's what you were saying to the Board at the time\nright? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 69 Q Now, let me go on to some other things about you . Have you ever spoken to Dr. Victoria Burnhart , personally? A No. Q I see . So you ' re not aware of who she is or what she does? A I know she works with us . Q Do you know of any of her qua l ifications? A No . Q I see . You disagree with Dr . DeJarnette that the process of the school district has not been embedded into its assessment process? A Not I. Q I 'm asking about you . A No. Q Do you know anything about the portfolio ' s that were supposed to have been developed? A No. Q Were there any impediments that you knew of to implementing a data warehouse , any cost impediments to implementing that? A I 'm not aware of that . Q All right . Do you disagree that a data warehouse system is not now in place? A I think we have something in place . Q You have something . Would you call it a completed data warehouse? A To the extent practically, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 ' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 Q To the extent practically? A Yes. Q Are you aware that much of the information in one of these reports is based on false data? BY MR. HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q Are you? A What report? Q The report submitted to the Court . The evaluation report . A We submitted a truthful report to the Court. Q Let me ask you : Did you have occasion in September and October to meet several times with Dr . Ed Williams outside of the presence of Dr . DeJarnette? A Perhaps, yes. Q Let me ask you now: Did you ever speak with Dr . Steven Ross regarding anything connected herewith? A No . Q Did Mr. John Ruffin have any role with respect to any of this? A Not that I know of. Q Did you ever speak with Mr. James Wohlleb? A Yeah, I've spoken with James before. Q Were you aware that Mr . Wohlleb and Dr. DeJarnette hired their own lawyers on or about November 3rd or before? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING ( 501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 A I know Dr . DeJarnette did . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette -- she's indicated that you said several things to her to express displeasure with her work performance . Did that happen before November 3rd? BY MR. HELLER: Object to the form. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer. A Dr. Roberts is the person that evaluates Dr. DeJarnette . Q I'm asking about you. Did you ever express displeasure with the work performance of Dr. DeJarnette? A I don't recall doing that, no, sir. Q All right. Now , have you ever given her a written evaluation before November of her work performance? A No, sir . Q Have you ever approved one? A Q No , sir. Have you ever seen one? A No, sir . Q Isn't it true that she was recommended for renewal at the end of the 2005-2006 school year? A Yes, sir. Q So that meant at that time that her work performance was satisfactory? A At that time, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ,1 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 Q All right. I take it you haven ' t had any direct discussions with Mr. Armstrong or any of the other Board members regarding your decision to remove her temporarily for her position\nis that correct? A No . Q All right . Who is the present director of the department? A There is an interim director . Q Who is that person? A Dr. Ed Williams . Q Was that position posted before you put him in it? A I t ' s not a vacancy, sir. Q Was it posted? A It ' s not a vacancy . Q Was there another position in PRE posted upon his being placed as interim director? A Yes , sir . Q Who made the decision to post another position? A We did. Q Who is we? Did you make that decision? A Dr . Roberts, Mr . Hattabaugh, and, yes, I was involved. Q Was that a position for a statistician? A Yes, sir. Q Was that the position that Mr . Williams formerly held? A Yes, sir . Q Did you all make a judgement that there was a need for a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ~ -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 73 second statistician? A Yes, sir. We wanted the department to have what they needed . Q So you wanted to have two statisticians in the department at this time? A We have three. Q All right. Let's assume that Dr . DeJarnette is reinstated . What happens to Dr . Williams? Does he go back to his former position? A We can't make a decision about that now . Q I see . But at this point it is intended that Dr . Williams will go back to his former position? A We haven ' t made a decision, sir . Q Is it his position that you all are advertising for to be filled? A It's the position he held , yes. Q I see . All right . BY MR. WALKER: I don't have any more questions. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Dr. Brooks, with respect to Exhibit 4, the letter to Dr. Mitchell from Dr . DeJarnette, it references an accompanying document . Was there an accompanying document? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 74 Was that document called the Compliance History 2004-2006? I think so, yes. Okay. And were there things in the accompanying document to which you objected? A Yes, sir . Q Did Dr. DeJarnette have a grievance pending at the time on November 3rd, 2006? A Yes, sir. Q Did the submission of the letter, which is Exhibit 4, and the accompanying document violate the district's policy with respect to processing grievances? A Yes, it did, sir. Q Okay. BY MR: HELLER: That's all I have . BY MR. WALKER: I want to make sure I have not gone into her grievance. I'm not representing her and I don't have any questions about her grievan~e and I didn't ask any questions about it. I don't have any questions . WHEREUPON, the deposition of Mr . Brooks concluded at 12 : 05 p.m . , December 13th, 2006. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 -5 110 I 75 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS , )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I, KELLY S. ADCOCK, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability, taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 17th day of December 2006 . KELLY S . DCOC~ Certified Court Reporter #643 My Commission Expires : 04 / 15 / 14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1788","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","School board members","School principals","Franklin Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Cloverdale Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification."],"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/1788"],"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":["98 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, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, notice for substitution of counsel; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Implementation of the Staffing Provisions of Plan 2000''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \u0026gt; I :e I Ut.C. 8.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 JOHN W. WALKERJ P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Lirrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (50/) 374--3758 Fa.~ (501) J7-l--1187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET P.1/12 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;{SOI) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contuned in th is facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidenti!l,l information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader oftl,is message is not the intended recipient, or the einployee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intctlded recipient. you are hereby notified that any di$semination, diSll'ibution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have   receive4 this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, ~d return the oriiinal message to us at the above address via the U.S. PoStal Service. Thank you. DEC. 8 .2006 1: 43PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AT'I'ORNEY AT LAW . 1'723 BROADWAY LlT'rL.8 Rocx, ARKANSAS 7.2.206 TELEPHONE (501) 374--3768 FAX(501)374:-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.eoui Honorable Judge William R Wtlson United States District Court Judge 6-00 West Capitol. Suite 423 Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201 Via Facsimile - 604--5149 December 8. 2006 N0.273 P.2/12 OFCOUNSEI., ROBERT M.eBENEY. P.A. DONNA J. Mu!ENRY 8210 Hi:NDER8oN ROAD Lrrru; Roa. ARKAN8A4 1l2lO 'PHONE: (501) 3'7l-34.25  FtJ. (501) 3'123428 Email: mcbamyd@swbell.net Re: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR ' Dear Judge Wtlson: Per the Court letter Order ofDecembet\" 6, 2006, Joshua Intervenors submit the following: - A. Witnesses: Mr. Charles Armstrong [25 minutesJ He will testify that he has not been informed by Dr. Roy Brooks of the Court's requirements, of the district's activities regarding program evaluation and assessment; that it appears that the district does not focus its attention upon achievement of African Amerioan students and that he has no indication that program evaluation is embedded in the district's cuniculum and instructional programs. He wm. testify that it appears that the efforts of the district are devoted to creating an environment attractive to white students and their parents. He will also testify that when he and other board members sought information regarding program evaluation, the director was removed from her position; and that district counsel has not provided information to him regarding the process and the status of the 1 . - -------------------------- JJt.C. B.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P.3/ 12 district, s compliance, Dr. Victoria Bemb.ardt [ 45 minutes] She bas expertise in the preparation and I manipulation of school data bases, facilitating the assessment and evaluation of educational programs for effectiveness in buil~ student achievement. She provided training to PRE staff regarding such sY~~. She identified an existing \"data warehouse\" methodology designed for use in school systems; to facilitate their assessment and evaluation of programs for effectiveness in building student achievement. While presentations regarding this system were made to LRSD, it was not adopted. This system could have been operative in the LRSD by mid October, 2006 had it been adopted. MJ. Lisa Black (30 minutes] She will testify that she bas significant evaluation and assessment obligations for the LRSD and that her activities are unknown to PRE or ODM She will also testify that she bas refused to provide information to Joshua regarding the evaluation - and assessments undertaking that she performs for the LRSD, as a private contractor on the public payroll. Mr. Tom Brode [ 20 minutes] See description of Mr. Tony Rose's testimony below. Dr. Roy Brooks [30 minutes] His lack of knowledge about the court's requirements and PRE compliance efforts and his affirmative actions designed to dirlnish the supplying of imormation to ODM and Joshua regarding the status of compliance with the 2004 remedy. Ms. Diane Curry [ 25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that of newly elected fellow board member Charles Armstrong. Dr. Michael Daugherty [25 minutes] His testimony will be similar to that of fellow board members Cbarles Armstrong and Di~e Cuny, He VJill also testify that he is unaware of 2 JVHN W WHLK~~ ~ H N0.273 P.4/ 12 any spcci:.fic programs which have worked to sigoifiC3lltly improve the academic achievement of African American students in the LRSD. Dr. Karen DeJamette (2 hours] [l] The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [2] The LRSD assigned additional duties to PRE staff; a filctor which played a role in l..RSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of the LR.SD' cuni.culwn and instruction program. Thus: [aJ In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2\" evaluatio11$, ''PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, fonnulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. Building the abilities of the PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistanceof outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations ofLRSD. [b] LR.SD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress - .in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. It is and has been feasi'ble for LRSD to create one or more computer data bases allowing compilation and manipulation of many forms of data and variables. Such data and variables could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different r~ programs, taking account as well as student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [3] LR.SD' s \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school'' and \"district\"\" \"portfolios\" - compilations of data like that listed in paragraph (2-b] [E.g., updates of9-1-0S at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [a] Although L.RSD first mentioned \"school 3 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.S/ 12 portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9-1-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock: School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year,\" show that \"LR.SD expects to ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-0S school year.\" [ At 7, para. 14; emphasis added] [b] The quarterly update dated 12-1 05 states: '--\"Data to be included in the district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] One can not determined the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished from the LllSD' s Revised Compliance Report,\" 10-25-06 at 6-7]. [4] The quarterly update of12-1..05 states (at 3): \"PRE is slso investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are - . currently developing.\" The (lllarterly updm:e of3-l--06 states (at 3): \"To suppon the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been finlctioning as one of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para., 3 (a)J. Upper level LRSD administrator rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in panieular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [ls!.. at para. 3 (c)] No data warehouse system is in place. [5] Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy ofLRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., para. 2; para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\") [ 6] Some LRSD representatives censored the eighth update, prepared by 4 - -- -- - - ----------- - - - ------ - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA N0 . 273 P.6/ 12 PRE stat: to minimize the notice of some compliance probletQS noted in this document. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2. para., 4. PJ The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. See Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7(a) (The superintendent threatened . . . (the dismissal (of PRE' s Director] if she shared information with ODM or Joshua.\"). [8] The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the school system regarding the content of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. A$ a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Asrociate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. [9] The work of PRE staff bas been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments in the Compliance Remedy. See paragraph 7 of the PRE. \"Compliance History . \" [10] Upon her hiring as PRE Director and her reading of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, she - understood that she had major responsibilities flowing from the court's 2004 remedy. She sought to fulfill these responsioilities in a diligent manner, to provide information to ODM and Joshua Intervenors consistent with their responsibilities under the remedy, and to be frank and honest in reporting on the status of compliance. She perceives that she has been suspended and faces termination for her efforu. Ms. Ethel Dunb~ [15 mim.ltes] She is the principal ofFranklinElementary school, a racially identifiable elementary school. She has not received training on how she can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in her schools designed to improve African American achievement. She has not been illfonned that such portfolios are available for her use, or been provided assessments for programs at her school based upon the 5 JUHN W WHLK~~ PA N0.273 P .7/12 use of such materials by oth~ persons. Mr. Freddie Fields ( 15 minutes) He is the principal of Cloverdale Middle SchooL a racially identifiable middle school. He has not received the training on how be can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in bis school designed to improve Afiican American achievement. He has not been informed that such portfolios are available for his use, or been provided assessments of programs at hls school based on the use of such material by other persons. He is also not familiar with the SMART/THRIVE programs which the district has identmed as one of the programs that has been deeply imbedded with ongoing assessments. Ms. Mebnie Fox (25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that _of Mr. Armstrong and Ms. C\\lil'Y. She will also testify that she bas been integrally involved with district activities for three (3) years. Ms. Beverly Griffen [IO minutes] She will discuss her involvement regarding the posting of the gltl Quarterly Update for the Board review and comments. Mr. Gene Jones (45 minutes] He will discuss his monitoring efforts, ODM 's attempts to assist the district with the compliance requirements, his interaction '\\Jlith PRE staff, his awareness of the dilectory requests by district counsel for extensions for extensions of time, promises made for followup work by district counsel which were unmet, LRSD' s failure to embed the an effective evaluation ai:t\u0026lt;I assessment pr-ocess into the LRSD's curriculum and instructional programs, his awareness of upper level district officials unhappiness with Dr. DeJamette and their circumvention of her through use of Dr. Ed Williams in a way which 6 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.8/ 12 undermined and otherwise divided the PRE staff. He will discuss other failing'S of the district with respect to the court's order. Mr. Chris Heller [30 minutes] He will discuss: a) directions to PRE not to cooperate except through him with ODM and Joshua; b) his unavailability and unresponsiveness to PRE for assistance subsequent to the last hearing before the court; c) promises made to provide information to Joshua and ODM in August, 2006 which were not kept; d) his refusal to make timely requests for extensions of time in violation of the court's November 29, 2005 order; e) his rewriting the gill Quarterly report .so as to mislead the court and to distort the status of compliance as represented by PRE st.aft; his advice to senior administrators nt to cooperate with PRE, Joshua and ODM; and t) his recommendation to Dr. Brooks to terminate Dr. DeJarnette. Dr. Katherine M\"rtc:hell [30 minutes] She will address the same issues as the other board members and she will opine that the senior administration did not intend to fully comply ~h the - court's ordei-. Ms. Margie Powell [ 25 miuutes] -Her areas willoverlap those ofMr. Gene Jones. She ~ also ~lain how the district's failure to timely comply and to otherwise obstruct compliance worked to prevent the embedding of an effective evaluation and assessment process. She will also discuss Mr. Heller's editing the 81b Quanerly Update so as to delete pages 2-6 of the draft therefrom. Mr. Tony Rose [20 mimrtesJ He is a former member of the LR.SD Board who directed the administration to be negative to the cooperation of ODM and Joshua with respect to the Compliance Remedy. He will also testify that he never became aware of the progress of PRE activities after 2004 and that he requested no reports of PRE regarding compliance before 7 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.9/ 12 September, 2006. Joshua ~ill seek to establish that it was Mr. Rose's guidance to Dr. Brooks and senior administrators which helped to create a lack of diligent, good faith compliance with the 2004 compliance remedy by upper level administration. Moreover, he did not agree with the court's compliance remedy. Dr. Steven Rou (30 mimrtes] He and bis colleagues received full cooperation from Dr. DeJarnette and other members of the PRE staff: Upper level administrators exhibited disinterest in the evaluation process. In the course of completing the evaluations problems regarding inaccurate data arose. He will be asked about the descriptions of programs in the four 2005-2006 evaluations. He is unfamiliar regarding the activities undertaken by LRSD with respect to embedding the comprehensive assessment process. Mr. John Ruffin [15 minutes] He is the Director of Information Technology. He will testify that is unaware of any process that is complete or substantially complete which has - embedded the evaluation process into the district curriculum. He will also testify that bis office had only become involved in the process in the last 6 months and that he had no earthly idea of what the court bas required. Ms. Joy Spl'll;lgtr [l hour] She will testify in a manner consistent with b.er affidavit filed on June 28, 2006. Ms. Springer will provide testimony regarding her monitoring activities. She will also provide examples of information requests made on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors which LRSD did not respond. Mr. James Wohlleb [ 45 minutes] He will testify regarding PRE work activities, cooperation or lack thereof from the administration, failure of support by the administration, the importance of the process and how it is integral for raising the achievement level of the majority N0.273 P.10/ 12 of the students in the district. He will also address the administration's efforts to undcmune the leadership ofDr. DeJarnette. B. Exhibiq,_ The numbers indicated below may not be the order presented at the hearing. 1. Court's Order of June 30, 2004 2. Court's Order ofNpvember 29, 2005 3. LRSD' s Programs Interventions and Models in LRSD Schools 4. Guidelines for Completing Program Evaluations by Steven M. Ross, PhD 5. LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process NEPN Code: IL-R 6. LRSD Program Evaluation Agenda NEPN Code: IL-R posted on website . 7. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated March 17, 2005 8. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated May 24, 2005 9. Letter to Dr. DeJamette dated December I, 2005 10. Letter to Chris Heller dated October 3, 2006 11. Letter to Chris Heller dated Aui:,aust 17, 2 006 12. LRSD's Quarterly Update filed September 1, 2006 13. LRSD's draft Quanerly Update for September 1, 2006 14. LRSD's Compliance Report :filed October 16, 2006 15. Joshua Intervenors Objections to Compliance Report 16. Letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell dated 11/3/06 from Dr. DeJarnette w/atta.chments 17. Pre -K Literacy Evaluation pages 180, 192, 234 . 18. Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report (2005-2006) page 9 I -I N0 .273 P.11/12 19. Emails dated 7/14/06 between DeJamette and Griffen regarding status on compliance report with attachment 20. Cover Pages of the eight (8) Step 2 Evaluations 21. PRE Comments on 10-16-06 Compliance Report filed by Chris Heller 22. LRSD's Eight (8) Quarterly Report Updates 23. LRSD'sReorganization Audit dated March, 2005 24. LRSD Guiding Principles 25. Miscellaneous emails between PRE, district administration, district counsel and Joshua. 26. Joslwa reserves the right to introduce rebuttal exhibits regarding witnesses testimony. In addition, Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list based upon documents provided by LRSD counsel that was requested several weeks ago. - C. Matters regarding the Subject 9f Media Reports Dr. Roy Brooks has displaced Dr. Karen DeJarnette as Director of PRE, has placed Dr. Ed Williams in het position and has advertised Dr. Williams' position as a vacancy. He did so after the Board requested that she appear before it. Consequently Mr. Chris Heller and Dr. Brooks hired the Quattlebaum law firm to investigate a grievance that had been filed by Dr. DeJarnette. The matter became public when presented by Mr. Heller and Mr. Quattlebaum in a public meeting to the school board. Her grievance still pends. Joshua believes that appropriate grounds e\u0026gt;dst for the Court's intervention in that it appears that the Court's order is being flaunted by the adverse action which followed her response to the Board as requested by the Board and as required by the Court's order. Joshua reserves the right to address this matter 10 I I - Ut.l.... ts. C:~lab 1 : 4 f t-'M JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P. 12/ 12 subsequently in order that the Court's supremacy with respect to its orders be duly respected by those charged to implement it. Joshua notes that the Court pointedly directed counsel to be frugal and cost conscious in their representation of the LRSD. LRSD claims that economics required it to reduce PRE st.at: yet LR.SD appears to have given unlimited access to the district check book to the law firms involved for the purpose of undermining Dr. DeJarnette and PRE. D. Mr. Burnett and Mr; Ouattleb\u0026amp;wn It is not ne~ary for either of these gentlemen or their firms to be involved in this proceeding. Mr. Quattlebaum has absolutcly nothing to contribute to this endeavor. :Mt. Burnette is representing Dr. DeJamette individually. Her matter is not presently before the Court in that she has not exhausted her internal remedies as set forth by Arkansas state law. Undersigned counsel does not purport to represent her interests. All references to her interests - are made because of the proposition that those who do the work of the court, as a matter of public policy, cannot and should not be subject to retaliation or reprisal. JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Honorable Judge Thomas Ray . 11 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-1019 E-mail: scott. richardson@arkansasag.gov December 11 , 2006 Mr. Norman J. Chachklin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Find, Inc. New York 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818  Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear .Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of the Motion for Substitution of Counsel and Entry of Appearance that were filed in the above referenced matter. Please contact me at (501) 682-1019 if you have any questions or need additional information. SPR/pjd Sincerely, k~ Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street  Suite 1100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 682-2007  FAX (5 01 ) 682-2591 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL BNIHO!INOW NOl!Y93H93S30 ~03~,~~o 900Z SI J30 C3Al303~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel, states: 1. Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier has recently changed responsibilities in the Attorney General's Office. 2. Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson has been given responsibility as lead attorney for this case. WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requests that Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier be withdrawn from this case and that Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson be substituted in his stead and for all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTTP. RICHARDSON, BarNo. 01208 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Emai I: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier(a),arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkerattv@aol.com 2 I --- - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 3 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11 , 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, December 11 , 2006 10:34 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Motion to Substitute Attorney\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/11/2006 at 10:33 AM CST and filed on 12/ 11 /2006 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Arkansas, State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume,nt Number: 4073 Docket Text: MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of. (Richardson, Scott) The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l2/l l /2006] [FileNumber=799638-0 ] [13349957099b9f6d33537ed0032adf7a072d99abel28b653605d3b4ef5512956dbc fl dd4a4a350dfbf4 70dcdl b 1 beaefl 0dafe587da7725403debb l 3bal 80884]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/1 1/2006 , ' .. agcivil@arkansasag.gov ,. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, kate.jones@jlj .com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net, nrnoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little R;ock, AR 7220 i-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/11/2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 1211112006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, who is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Arkansas, hereby enters his appearance ih this case as counsel for Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfu11y submitted, MIKE BEEBE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.goy COUNSEL FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11 , 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMIECF system, which sha11 send notification of such filing to the following: .-- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 12/11/2006 Page, 2 of 3 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net  Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan . pkaplan@k!bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.riet Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty(@ao l.com I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11, 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed )2/11 /2006 .Page 3 of 3 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 . ( /s/ Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: / ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov \\ Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1 0: 31 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Appearance\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/ 11 /2006 at 10:31 AM CST and filed on 12/11/2006 Case Name: Case Number: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas,. State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4072 ' -- Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Paris Richardson on behalf of Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of (Richardson, Scott) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: , [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l2/ l l /2006] [FileNurnber=799633-0 ] [9e40375cd08dc8 l ae09cDfe0866 l aabff78 l 613add66602 l 6dfb0el 85bf55c8ae5 d2ef8fe0de33306f01J787el4dl8ecf4e456ad8dab9d2cd2a7864e4cc5022]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com '- John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/11/2006 agci vil@arkansasag.gov - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! brnlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dociley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of 2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/ 11 /2006 II  II I I I I I I -  I I I I I I \"I I rr J:ILED f  ., u.l. DISTRICT couRr  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 12 2006 JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By I 2006-07 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE DEP CLERK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Horace R. Smith Monitor December 12, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager ' ' --- - ' ' -- .. -- I I I 1 -  -- - UPDATE ON THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STAFFING PROVISIONS OF PLAN 2000 . Margie L. Powell Monitor December 15, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Monitor : ~- IA8T~f J~ill~~SA8 DEC 15 2000 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By--------=o=EP=-c::-LERK= Gene Jones Monitor ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones  Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III JAN - 3 200j OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: .fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr .. Ben Mays, Clinton  Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, ar # 922 1 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 20, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 . Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ll Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 kit~ Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court.  This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of1Eiecember 31, 2006  .m:.9iiJ5eJJoto1~uwiEia6lm\u0026amp;fi@aviiii6efaa12oaa~era@1aiwm State1Eouriaaticm$iindjrdlfllll:1~I\u0026lt;fflEoi'eittcf6etio8ijfagfflsJMUI 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 JAN - 3 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERJ.'-T DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVNORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION On June 30, 2004, the court instructed the parties to cooperate in addressing their concerns with respect to implementation of the Court's directive regarding assessing programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. The District appealed. The Court entered a separate Order to the effect that without or without an appeal the Court expected its Order to be implemented pendente lite. Rather than participate directly in the implementation process, Mr. Heller placed all of his eggs in one basket expecting the court's remedy to be overturned. Mr. Heller raised no questions regarding Joshua's continuing participation in the local PRE work until after the Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's Order. Ivfr. Heller and undersigned counsel had continuing disagreements regarding what information Joshua was to receive from PRE. Joshua, on the other hand, received its information in the same manner as it had previously done through October, 2006. Before that time, Mr. Heller did not 1 present to the Court any concerns that Joshua exceeded its bounds with respect to monitoring. Indeed, no motion to that effect has ever been filed. The instant proceeding is before the Court because :tvfr. Heller now has to regard the . interests of African American children and to provide more respect to the African American school board members than he did before. Before 2004, when the Court's remedy was set forth, Mr. Heller disregarded the two African American board members, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and Mr. Michael Daugherty. During the fall, Nfr. Heller opposed relief being sought by Nfr. Charles Armstrong and Ms. Dianne Curry with respect to their school board election campaigns. He continued to oppose those two board members until December 15, 2006 when an Order was entered dismissing their case intervention. He was in the unenviable position of opposing them in one action and representing them in another action. This appears to be a violation of ethics rules as well but is not being presented for the Court's present decision. Despite Nfr. Heller's antagonism to Nfr. Armstrong and Ms. Curry, they won school board seats. As of October, 2006, they joined Nfr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell to form a majority Africci American school board. It was only after this event that Nfr. Heller raised the issue of improper contact with his \"clients\" before the Court. The further background of this matter involves Dr. DeJarnette. Between June, 2006 and November, 2006, she made frequent complaints that she was being obstructed by the administration and not aided by Nfr. Heller in the PRE's efforts to comply with the Court 's order. The PRE's September draft report for the Court expressed PRE's concerns about noncompliance. The draft September report had initially been presented to the school administration in mid August, 2006. The response of:tvfr. Heller was to exclude from the Court 's 2 September final report the concerns which the PRE eA1Jressed in the draft report. When Mr. Heller learned that the September draft report had been shared with Joshua and ODM, he found no fault with that. (In the past, some draft reports had been shared with ODM and Joshua.) On August 4, 2006, Mr. Heller met with Joshua and ODM for more than an hour regarding concerns raised by Joshua to the effect that there were compliance issues outstanding. The meeting concluded upon l\\tfr. Heller's promise _that he would obtain further information regarding the issues raised by Joshua and ODM and that he would promptly get back ODM and Joshua. The meeting between Joshua and Heller was directed by the Court and coordinated by ODM in the manner contemplated by the Court. Despite his commitment, ]\\,fr. Heiler never met again with Joshua and ODM to further address the concerns presented at that c_ourt directed meeting. The Court subsequently inquired whether Joshua and LRSD were still at \"loggerheads\" to which Joshua replied in the affirmative. Mr. Heller's first acknowledgment of subsequent availability for the followup meeting came on November 1, 2006. See Exhibits 1 and 2. This was after newly elected Board President Dr. Katherine Mitchell requested that Dr. DeJarnette address the status of compliance with the Court's order and after the Board majority had shifted. At that point, Mr. Heller had been identified as an obstructor of the Court's Order and an accomplice of the school administration in seeking to retaliate against Dr. DeJarnette for sharing . her concerns with the Court, ODM, Joshua and the Board. What is before the Court are Joshua's objections to court release of the district because it has not complied with the letter and spirit of the Court's Order regarding program assessments. The sub-issues involve the following in Joshua's belief: 1) whether Mr. Heller deliberately delayed requesting an extension of time in which to comply with the Court's Order after Dr. 3 DeJ arnette made it known that the additional time was needed; 2) whether Dr. DeJ arnette' s proposed termination was retaliatory, i.e., undertaken for either or both punitive reasons and/or to discredit her when she testifies before the Court; and 3) whether the Joshua counsel and monitor acted outside the letter and the spirit of this Court's Order directing cooperation.1 The Court is being called upon to exclude the African American school board members and Dr. DeJamette as witnesses: \"that the Joshua Intervenors be prohibited from calling as witnesses at the January 20, 2007 hearing LRSD officials and personnel with whom Walker or Springer have had ex-parte communications related to LRSD's implementation of the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" page 9 (7) Joshua contends that this pleading is an effort to preclude Joshua's calling :tvrr. Heller as a witness in the forthcoming proceeding. For the disqualification of IV.Ir. Walker would effectively  moot the issue of whether Mr. Heller complied with the Court's order to cooperate with and support PRE in its implementation efforts. In the supplemental pleading before the Court, facts are urged by :tvrr. Heller which cannot be e~tablished without an evidentiary hearing because they are disputed. Much of the objection regarding attorney client privilege between Heller and DeJarnette has to be more carefully considered. At some point, Dr. Brooks became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette or at least she contends that. Did :tvrr. Heller continue to represent both of them during that adversariness. Mr. Heller also became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette because she 1 . The Order referred to by Judge Wright was entered during the midst of compliance hearings before her which had begun in July, 2001. She was concerned that while the matter was being heard by her there would not be any communication between Joshua counsel and school officials except by informing counsel in advance. That situation ended when those hearings ended. Her proposition as a general rule is understood and has been respected by counsel and Ms. Springer. 4 informed him that the district, in her opinion, was non compliant with the Court's orders. Dr. DeJamette then obtained her own counsel because she apparently was being threatened by Dr. Brooks for setting forth her honest views regarding the status of compliance in her discussions before the school administration and with ODM , Joshua and the Board. She then filed a grievance allegmg that the administration and 1'fr. Heller had taken adverse action against her due to her PRE responsibility to the Court. Undersigned counsel also came to represent Ms. Yvette Dillingham, a member of PRE, who was adversely affected by the school district's reorganization plan which took place in 2005. Did 1ifr. Heller represent her or did 1ifr. Walker represent her? Clearly, the question is not so easily to be determined. At most, it is to be said that N.fr. Heller represented Dr. Brooks and that Dr. Brooks and the Board were directly accountable to the Court. Dr. DeJamette became directly  accountable to the Court because of the specific orders of the Court. Indeed, 1ifr. Heller was also obliged to respect the Court's orders. The only \"party\" including counsel prior to the election of the two African American board members who sought to respect the orders of the Court was Dr. DeJamette. The others sought to obstruct it. . Joshua counsel should not be disqualified for bringing matters to the attention of the Court which are established by papers, public discussion, and exchanges of correspondence. Seldom is the public's legitimate business known only to a limited number of people. This is one of those cases. Clearly, the old Board was not concerned by its actions about effectively addressing the underachievement of African American students nor was LRSD counsel. Nor did LRSD counsel inform either Board of his private actions which involved his previous client, Dr. Ken James, former LRSD Superintendent of Schools and now Commissioner of Education for 5 - Arkansas, regarding negotiations to end magnet school and M to M transfer funding. - - The motion for contempt and to disqualify and its supplement to disqualify Joshua counsel should be dismissed because thereis no evidentiary basis to support either. If it is to be considered on the merits by the Court, an evidentiary hearing is respectfully requested. Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (facsimile) Respectfully submitted, Isl Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, JVIA 02421 781-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 29th day of December, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and mailed to the following persons: Mr. Gene Jones ODM 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 West Third Street Little Rocle, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S . District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 6 ;ent 01 / 11 / 2006 at 16:54:14 - from to 5013744187 p3/3 ~ SCHEL H. F1UDr\\i\" {19?:. ; 994) ..'1 N M . .ElSEMAfl, JR., :I.A,  A .. 8UITR~. P.A. .,iRICK S. t.~ SRY, P .. \\. J~ C. CL\\RK, JR.. P.,.i,. T HOMAS?. LEGG'ETT, P.A. JOHN OEWY WA.'t:mN, P .. -\\. PAUL B. S'ENHJ\\M 111. P.A. t r\\RRY \\V. BURKS,? .. '\\. ,-\\ , WYCKLlFF NTS'BET, fR., P .. a\\.. JAMES EOW t\\RD H.'\\RRts, P .. \\. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHPR'EJU) aussnr. Ill, P.A. OON . .UO H. BACON, [I.,\\. WILLIAM THOMAS 8AXTt:lt. ?,A. JOS\"E.i'H 8 . HURST. JR .. P.A. ELlZABETR ROBBEN MURRAY, P-~ CHRlSTOPRER HELLER. P.A. LAUlL-\\ ITENSt.\"EY SMini, P.A. ROBt::RTS. SHAF!l\\. P .. s\\, Wllt.lM,( ~l. GRl l-''FIS UI, P,A ~ICHAH S. ~ C ORE. P.i. WALTER M. on m. ?- \" 'K!Vl N' A. CR.ASS, P.A. WlLUAM A. WA.DDiLL.JR., P.A. SCOTT ). L,NCASTE.R. ?_'\\.. R08ERT 'B. 3EACH, JlL. P. A. J. UE 'BROWN, P.A. ).UIES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARR'! A- U GHT. P .. '\\. SCOTT H. TUCKER, ? . .-\\ .. Gl1Y ALTON WADE, ?.A. PRtCE C. OAR'DNER. P .. \\ . TONl,\\ P. JOl-Jts, I' . .\\, OAVtO D. WtLSON, P.A. JEFFltEY H. MOORE, P.A. OAVTO }.(. G'RA.f, Jl .. \\ . CARL..\\ CUNN'tts SJIAlNHOU'R, P.A. JON.\\NN C. CHlLES , P.A. R. CHRlSTOPHER L.\\WSON, P,A. BITTY ). DEMORY. P . .\\. Ll'l'f-OA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JtUO:S W. S\u0026gt;.(tTH, P .. \\. CLIFFORD VI , Pt.UNKlITT, P .. '\\.. DANIEL 1... HEJ\\RlNGTON, P.A.. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 - FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LJMJTED LIA.BIL!TY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm .com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LJTTL.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 50.13762011 FAX 501,JH-2147 1  15 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, .SUIT'S\" 103 F.l.YETTEVILLE.. ARKAM!5.AS 72703 .. -'111 TELEPMONE 471~eos.2011 FAX  7 t-H5-Z 147 November 1, 2006 J. MICH.UL rlICJ.'..l:NS, P.A. .MAR VlN L CHlLDERS X. COLEM.\"i.N WESTBROOK, JR., P.A. ALUSON ). CORNWEil.. P.A. '-. nl.'EN OWENS SMITH, P.A. JASON'!. HENDREN, P.A. :SRUC? B. TIDW'El.L. P.A. JOSEPH P. MC-~AY. P . .\\. ,\\UXANOR..._ .-\\. lFRhK, :P .A. JAY T. TAY!.OR. P .. , . MARTIN.\\.. K.-\\.n!N, P.A. BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. ~'lCHOLS 'if.OBERT T. SMm-t R. YAN A .. BOWM..-\\.N TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MlC'HE'LU .\\TOR. ?.A, JC-'..R.EN S. RAL11'ERT SAKAH b-l. COTTON \\.\"'RtSTEN S. ROWL\\.NOS .\\LAN G. BRYAN UNUSE.\\' MITCH..'\\M LORENCE. KHAY~AM M. :EDDlNGs_ VIA FACSILE and REGULAR lVIAIL Re: Meet and Confer Dear John: JOHN F. Pb15ER1C:1 AM.A'NOA CAPPS ROSE STI.VEN L BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNC, JR. JAMtE HUFFMAN JONE5 iCIMBIRLY l), r o UNG JASON N, BR.o\\.MLEIT BRlAN C. SMlt'H O. b-UCH.An ~,tOYE'RS S'Ent M. HAIN'ES CRI N!.. CULLUM KRlSTOl\u0026gt;HIR B. KNOX l\u0026lt;.\\.'I'HRYN A, 11'. RKPAT'RlC..: J. ADAM W!U.S U ,U'RA J, .\\SBUl\\Y 0 1 C:OVNSlL WlLLlhM H, SUTTO N, !',.\\ , \\l.'lll..1.1\\M \\.. TERRY WtLLMM l.. P,'\\TTO~. JR. H.T. LARn.LER.E. ?.A. OSCAR E. DA\\-7 S , JR. . .?.A. CRR.lSTOPHER H.t LLER 1.lrrL'E ROCK nL rn 1.Ji'O-U06 FAX S 0 1 ,l  -!5H  bcllu ci;(c,;.nct You now have our Compliance Report and have participated in the evaluation team meetings regarding Read 180, 21st Century and A+. You also have other information and documents from PRE concerning our compliance. I will be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss any compliance concerns you may have. It will be more difficult to anange a meeting and, I believe, beyond the scope of what the Court has required of us, if you continue to insist that LRSD Board Members and PRE staff be present. Please give me a call at your converuence. CJH/bk cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJarnette Margie Power Gene Jones Christopher Heller I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT I -.. JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS :tvir. Chris Heller FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Meet and Confer Dear Chris: - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Email: jphnwalkeratty@aol.com November 1, 2006 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD 1rrTLE ROCIC, ARl0u'ISAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net PRE staff has been accessible in the past when you have not been. why don't you try to arrange a time wheri they are available and share that time with ODM. We will try to accommodate it. It would be better in the late afternoon. I am not available on the following dates: November 3, 8, 13-17, 2006. JWW:js cc: Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Margie Powell Sincerely, ls/John W: Walker PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ;7.    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_1775","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School employees","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, 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/1775"],"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":["63 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision; District Court, two notices of deposition; District Court, letter rescheduling deposition; 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 DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. CASE NO. 4:82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRJGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT AND PRAYER FOR RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For the reasons which follow, the JoshuaJntervenors object to the LRSD Compliance Report and request to be released from court supervision. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. K. 1. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [Compliance Remedy, para. A] 2. LRSD administrators .have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio\", and \"data 1 warehouse.\") ; see also Attachments hereto A-6, para. 6-7 (Springer Aff., 6-28-06) 3. In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. See Attachments at 1-3 (cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation).1 These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A (court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; .. . \") It was at all times apparent that 1:milding the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the - assistance of outside evaluators (or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators; was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 4. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. BJ a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing ,. compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; [iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education 1 The fourth evaluation for 2005-06 (of Pre-K literacy program) is not yet available. 2 status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, ,.courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; [ xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools expos~d to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to determine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questiormaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessmerit process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (use of questionnaire postponed) See also Attachments at A-6, para. 6 (Springer Aff.) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9- 1-05 at 3, corrections in the ~'Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school years,\" show that \"LRSD expects to ,., .J ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not determine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] _ e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio 's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See Attachment at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] 4 g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Attachments at A-5 to A-6, para. 5 (Springer Aff.). 5. With regard to the 2005-06 evaluations, at least the evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program contain insufficient description of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students; as it has been implemented in sch?ols throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]; Attachments A-19 to A-22 (Joshua Intervenors 's Comments on inadequate program descriptions in these evaluations)] 6.  While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems noted in this docm.ent. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Attachments at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE a:t page 2, para, 4] 7. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph H of~he 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments at A-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened . . . [the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 8. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy.  See Attachments at A-22 (no response made to this letter seeking information on PRE staff); see also paragraph 7 of this submission (threat of PRE's Director). [Compliance Remedy, para. I] 9. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the 5 school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously - reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 10. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua repres~ntatives. Moreover, team member part1cipation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Attachments, k7, para. 10 (Springer Aff.). 11 . The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Attachments, A-16, para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance.History\"). For example, we understand the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, to be that some of the key Section 2.7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, _this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2.7 programs as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 12. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program 6 evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, .!. 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for 2005-2006 school year filed by the LRSD to date do not comply with the requirements of the remedy. 13 . The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Remedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LRSD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 14. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. 15. The LRSD is submitting the draft Pre-K literacy evaluation on or about November 15, 2006 (today). By letter of October 31, 2006, Joshua representatives requested counsel of the LRSD to provide certain information bearing upon compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. While counsel agreed to provide the requested information, it has yet to be received. Given these two factors, Joshua Intervenors request the opportunity to supplement these objections should the content of information later received indicate the need for supplementation. 7 CONCLUSION Respectfully, the Court should reject LRSD's request for a finding of substantial compliance with the 2004 remedy and its prayer for release from court supervision and the Court should require the LRSD to show cause why it is not in contempt of Court. Joshua points up that the LRSD Board of Directors have not been fully informed of the requirements of the Court by counsel and are not fully aware of their obligations under the Order or the authority which they have to take action and direct their administration with respect to the agreed upon remedy. Accordingly, Joshua requests that the school administration and district counsel be enjoined to fully i\"'.1form the Board of Directors of the Court's orders, the duties and expectations ofthe Board and that LRSD administrators with respect to the Compliance Remedy. In addition, the Court is also requested to enjoin the LRSD administration and the Board of Directors from' punishing PRE staff for attempting to in'iplement the court ordered remedy in good faith. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors request that PRE, after the court hearing, report directly to the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District for the next two years while the process of program assessments and evaluations is being embedded as directed by the Court. LRSD should remain under court supervision for a minimum of two additional years and be required to comply fully with those aspects of the 2004 remedy to which compliance has been inappropriate. ls/Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 8 ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on this 15th day of November, 2006 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and in addition a copy has been mailed by U.S . mail to: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 9 - ATTACHMENTS TO JOSHUA OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COlVIPLIANCE REPORT A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 . A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for Read 180 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for A+ Springer Affidavit of June 28, 2006 Dr. Karen DeJarnette's Letter to Dr. Mitchell dated November 3, 2006 PRE Compliance History starting with Cover Page Joshua Comments regarding the 20005-2006 Draft Evaluations Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated December 1, 2005 Case 4)32-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 132 '- CREP C,mtu for R~earch in Etlucadonai Polir:y Center for Research in Educational Pciicy The Universily of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph .D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University  Attachment 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 112 CREP Cilnter for Rueardr in EducationaJ Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree -------- Evaluation of 21 st Century Community Learning Center, Little Rock School District, 2005-06 Technical Report DRAFT October 2006 Heidi Kenaga Jerry A. Bates Fethi lnan Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion University Attachment 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4052 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 56 The A+ Education Program At Woodruff Elementary, Little Rock School District An .Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African-American Student Achievement Draft-Report for Review and Comments Only October 16, 2006 .James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies .Los Angeles~ CA 90095-1521 jamcsc/@.gscis.ucla.edu Note: The opinions expressed in this report Dre t ho~e of the author and not necessarily tho5e of Little Rock School District or Woodruff School personnel. The profes~iona l schools find colle~es or the Univer~ity ofCallfornin do not tnke official positions 011 prog!\"llm cvnluntion stlltements of faculty ~nd do not officinlly endorse nonaffilh1tc.d progn1ms. Attachment 3 IN THE UNITED STATES D.ISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO. 4:82cv00866WRW/JTR AFFIDAVIT OF JOY SPRINGER Comes now the affiant, Joy Springer, who states under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. My name is Joy Springer and I have been assigned by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with. the court's order.of June 30, 2004 (iater referred to as the Compliance Remedy). 2. I have previously submitted affidavits herein indicating that I have a two Bachelors degrees, one in General Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Masters degree in Education Administration fro:rn U ALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years .. 3. I have been regularly monitoring program evaluation compliance before and especially since the court's order of June 30, 2004. My monitoring has involved the following activities: 1 Attachment 4 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program  .:. evaiuations; b) conversations with PRE staff , the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE's quarterly reports regarding the compliai.,ce remedy; d) review ofLRSD's board agendas and minutes; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I.have regularly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM; what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, focused and ' ' deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my work, I have had an occasion to review district publications which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional ' ' deveiopment in the ar.ea of program assessments and evaluations has 'hot been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is demonstrated, for example, by the district's professional development calendar for the year's 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006, approximately three weeks before the end of the second school year addressed in the compliance remedy [and almost two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], even for those 2 Attachment 5 dates, it does not mention the number of staff who received professional development with ~ respect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district's curriculum: This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court expected (Page 62, Footnote39 of the Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questionnaire postponed) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse\" to either ~upplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction programs. LRSD Compliance Ryport March 1, 2006 at 3 .. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE's use. [Interview with Dr. DeJarnette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's requirement that the district have a PRE department i..11 the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program assessment/evaluation process (Page 68, of the Compliance Remedy). 8. Various factors suggest that the vision of the current administration of the LRSD de-emphasizes the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE reported directly to the Superintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would realize the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court. In March 2005, Dr. . Brooks assigned Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Olivine Roberts, to supervise PRE. Thereafter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major focus .. These responsibilities included the preparation school improvement plans for a large 3 Attachment 6 number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as part of the school improvemeii.t effort. I understand PRE's major focus to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying .out of required assessments and evaluations, and the embedding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. 9. In the two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation, Dr. Olivine Roberts has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LRSD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Broo~ has made -i1th respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. Another example of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the_2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation consisted, for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. During the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active pa..rticipation by other district staff who had the responsibility of actually implementing the programs being evaluated. 11. A third example of PRE' s diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The Testing Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham, left the district prior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contract diminished from 11 months to 10 months as a result of the district's \"reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testing Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. A.i-thur Olds).[Compliance Report March 1, 2006] He resigned a.i-\"t:er approximately 3 months on the job.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position  has not been filled. It is my understanding that one of PRE's statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4 Attachment 7 been assigned the added responsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for job vacancies, the Testing Coordinator position has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) of the LRSD. The purpose of the meeting was for PRE staff to update Joshua and the ODM regarding the status of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the necessary test data for the Step 2 evaluations due on October 1, 2006. PRE Director, Dr. DeJarnette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data would be such that an extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she would provide the necessary information to the LRSD counsel for the filing of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1,. 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process into its curriculum and instruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in formulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2.7.1_. Based upon this communication and information contained in paragraphs 5,6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PRE staff members and the ODM representative, Gene Jones, that because the district was not in -compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction programs as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has communicated similar reservations to the LRSD's  PRE staff. 5 Attachment 8 14. Following informing Dr. DeJarnette, PRE Director, that Joshua would invoke the court's att~ntion, the district's three top administrators, Dr. Roy Brooks, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met vvith l\\tfr. Jones thereafter. It is noteworthy that they did not include PRE Director D_eJarnette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly asked that Joshua be fully involved iri. these discussions, the district chose to involve only ODM. 15. I am of the view that the LRSD has continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30, 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example, it appears to me that Dr. DeJamette is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She has indicated as rri.uch during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD h~ no definitive plan for the use of \"assessments\" being generated by the Compass Learning programs. Furthermore, the school district's administration has not acted in keeping Joshua and the court informed through timely reports, of the necessity for more time, and for . modifi(?~tion of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluations which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's failure t? provide the necessary data. Affiant saith nothing further.  6 Attachment 9 7 Attachment 10 November 3, 20Q6 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Mitchell: Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 In preparation for the session you have requested regarding compliance status, PRE has written the accompanying summary of our experience during the past two years. Since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions, this unusual delivery should insure that our thoughts are delivered for this session with some time for thorough review prior to the meeting. One of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts 'was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006). The version delivered to the Superintendent's office for the Board's review at the August agenda meeting is Appendix A of the accompanying document. The version submitted to ODM (Appendix B) omitted nearly all of section Band much of section C, (pp. 3-6 of PRE's version). On these pages PRE described obstacles to the District's \"embedding\" and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs. The description demonstrated the District's critical, earnest effort at achieving this responsibility required by the Court; and it provided a basis for actions leading to the District's full compliance. Its omission from the update allows a reader's false impression that the District has progressed further than it in fact has. Another reason for submitting this document to you is the probable absence by two of our department's members on November 9 due to previously scheduled leave. If the board desires, they might join the discussion via a telephone connection. Our department engaged enthusiastically when we began two years ago to carry out the compliance remedy, and we sustained our energy since then. Due to this effort and its results, the District can demonstrate its sincere engagement in removing barriers and Attachment 11 introducing procedures which will establish trustworthy assessments as usual procedures. We ar.~ therefore eager to d.is_!?uss these matters with the Board. P: .....-.'-..-~- Karen DeJarnette Director xc: Board of Directors Mr. Heller Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua intervenors Attachment 12 - ------- -------------- Compli~nce History 2004 - 2006 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department November 3, 2006 Attachment 13 PRE' s Compliance History 2004-2006 Background The Compliance Remedy of June 30, 2004 issued by the U.S. District Court (USDC) established the main tasks and orientation for the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE). The Remedy's requirements included the following: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE, which LRSD initially accomplished by hiring an additional PhD-level statistician as director and adding two master-level statisticians 2. Eight \"step-2\" evaluations of LRSD programs, which external evaluators have undertaken under PRE's oversight 3. Embedding assessment into the operations ofLRSD, which PRE started with a new assessment policy (approved by Board of Directors), first draft of a LRSD portfolio (with three of five types of desired information), and a plan for a data warehouse which a leading vendor represented could be implemented by summer 2006 with corrected data 4. Eight quarterly updates by PRE to ODM, which PRE prepared in time for Board consideration and approvals 5. Cooperation (non-adversarial relations) with Joshua by LRSD, which has increasingly occurred between Joshua and PRE 6. Compliance Report by LRSD; which it submitted October 16 when due. Difficulties with compliance There have been multiple challenges to complying with these requirements: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE , While LRSD initially boosted PRE staff, PRE's resources subsequently dwindled: a. Reorganization in 2005 eliminated both PRE's secretary and its test coordinator assistant, so PRE became the only department with professional staff who enjoy no secretarial support. b: LRSD in 2005 decreased the test coordinator to 11 months (rather than 12), and the seasoned test coordinator resigned. LRSD next reduced the position to nine months then restored it to 12 again. PRE went without a full-time person for more than 12 months (with a half FTE for a few months). Many test infractions-unprecedented in recent LRSD history-occurred during that period, due probably to inadequate staff. Investigations by the state will likely continue throughout this school year with threats to some employees' certifications. 2. Eight evaluations by external experts External evaluators have .undertaken the eight required evaluations but discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. a. Not surprising, no policy and no comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. Very competent people input and process data for LRSD, but they work without a coordinated plan which seeks out errors, corrects them, and guards use and integrity of LRSD information. b. The extent of data errors is unknown, so results based on LRSD information have uncertain accuracy and validity. c. In the October 2006 compliance report, filed with the USDC, LRSD disclosed that it has begun efforts to monitor more closely for errors new information entering the Pagel of5 Attachment 14 LRSD data base. However, PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. d. LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data. 3. Embedding assessments-in LRSD operations For supporting LRSD's obligation to embed assessment, PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" late in 2004 with nationally eminent experts in school information and launched additional assessments not mandated by the Compliance Remedy. a. LRSD rejected PRE's plans, which would have had the data warehouse functioning by the due date of the Compliance Report required by the Court. b. Instead, LRSD chose a firm which develops data warehouses for retail commercial applications. That firm's software, Crystal Objects, was implemented in schools in Orange County, Florida, which do not assess programs as LRSD has committed to do. c. When the vendor will finish enough of its \"data cube!' to support PRE's data needs is unknown, although it is partially ready and easily usable in its incomplete state. d. LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data base but not in its design. A simple example is PRE's ongoing request, starting in January 2006, for tagging student and teacher records (allowing LRSD to identify their participation in key programs and track their progress later). LRSD has not tagged records. e. LRSD has also undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally. For example, LRSD refused PRE' s scientifically valid surveys of stakeholder opinions, which are important information for the dis.trict portfolio. f. With the aid of a consultant and encouragement from a state ACSIP coordinator, PRE positioned LRSD to lead the state's school districts in responding to Arkansas' newrequirement for a wellness priority in its annual ACSIPs. Yet, LRSD opposed  this project without reason. g. Thus, during the past two years, LRSD has impeded compliance with embedding  assessment in itsoperations. 4. Eighth quarterly update In its final quarterly update, PRE noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and their threat to sound decisions based on such info1mation. a. LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version (Appendix A) from the Board at its scheduled agenda meeting, when the Board would have normally considered it, and eliminated this and other parts from PRE's final update without the Board's knowledge. (Appendix B has the revised version submitted to ODM and Joshua.) b. Unaware of any changes and apparently without reading the revised update, Board members approved the revised quarterly update at its regular meeting. c. However, PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the Board for its review and discussion. So ODM and Joshua know that LRSD altered PRE's update, but the Board may not know it. 5. Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua During the 2004-05 year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not very cooperative--consistent with the history of the two parties. a. However, during the next school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw on one hand, while PRE experienced less and less responsiveness from LRSD counsel on the other hand. b. A directive from LRSD's counsel not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel seemed at odds with USDC's 2004 remedy, but PRE's plea to LRSD and its Page 2 of 5 Attachment 15 counsel for clarification of this directive went unanswered. c. Moreover, LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions, of which PRE notified Joshua, ODM, LRSD, and its counsel. d. In these circumstances, PRE felt estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua: e. With encouragement from ODM, PRE shared openly with ODM its efforts and discussed them. 6. Compliance report While LRSD counsel submitted on its due date the compliance report mandated by USDC's 2004 remedy, the report contained significant errors. a. After PRE's prompt notice (with documentation) of the report's errors (Appendix C), counsel corrected some of them and submitted a revised report to USDC. 7. Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials Quite regrettably, the relation between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. a. The superintendent threatened her dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. b. Informatiop from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. c. Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without her knowledge. d. LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. e. She engaged a law firm for advice in the absence of LRSD's legal counsel. f. She filed a grievance through LRSD's Human Resources Department. The grievance alleged (and documented) interference on the part ofLRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy and from interviews at the time of her hiring. She expressed her fear of possible penalties by the USDC as a result of noncompliance by LRSD. g. Violating its.policy for prompt attempts to resolve grievances, LRSD has neither tried remediation nor informed its Board of the situation. Recommendations Several possibilities for resolution of these difficulties include the following. A Restoration of administrative support and addition of test coordinators, based on a review of responsibilities: i. An administrative assistant will expedite much processing of department business, inciuding preparing reports and processing surveys.  ii. Testing seems to require at least a full-time administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  iii. These needs ~ould be substantiated and clarified by an expert audit. B. Comprehensive study of LRSD data accuracy and implementation of policy and procedures for managing LRSD information and guarding its accuracy, use, and fidelity: i. Since LRSD does not seem to employ data system experts, it may need to hire consultants, who should be knowledgeable about public school data requirements from cybernetic, legal, organizational, community, and possibly other viewpoints. ii. The comprehensive system intended here is not the same as data processing, which the Computer Information Services Department performs very well. This Page 3 of5 Attachment 16 department understandably has consistently denied responsibility for quality of  the information it' processes. -  iii. Data input has been well coordinated by a single employee without sufficient resources to check and correct new data.  iv. Blaming any department or employee for incorrect data is inappropriate. The failure has been in not addressing information issues globally. C. More resources devoted to completing the data warehouse: i. The current difficulty of assembling data (as well as its unknown validity) hampers the capacity to assess programs efficiently and confidently. Therefore, finishing and testing the ambitious construction of LRSD's data warehouse should proceed quickly. ii. Of equal importance is estimating error rates in previously collected data and proceeding systematically with correcting it as indicated by investigation. iii. The data warehouse should include the additional information needed by PRE for assessments, portfolio, ACSIPs, and other functions. iv. If the application now under construction proves inadequate, LRSD should reconsider PRE's vendor or another which satisfies current and anticipated needs. _ D. Protection of PRE and LRSD from senior administrators' actions: i. Because assessing LRSD's programs is parallel to auditing its finances, the Board will benefit from direct communication with and directi_on of PRE, similar to the internal auditor's. ii.Accordingly, the Board would directly detennine PRE's budget. iii_ LRSD's senior officials have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy with this essential function of faithfully communicating expert opinion to the Board. iv. Their behavior has also rendered the Board at risk of non-compliance. v. The Board could protect itself from such behavior by replacing senior officials. E. Transparency: i. While its operations have grown more open over the past decades, LRSD must maintain and increase its accountability to all stakeholders regardless of historical conflicts, political alignments, personal conflicts, and other influences. ii. Its Board may set an example of enthusiastic compliance and insist on like practices throughout the organization. Posturing and abuse of regulations are not consistent with transparency. iii. A question which seems not to have been asked often enough, \"Do we want to teach our students this kind of behavior?\" Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 7 : \\l~ Summary of Compliance and Recommendations USDC requirements Compliance Status Recommendations LRSD hired another PhD-level evaluator as director and two masters-level Rejuvenate PRE. statisticians but ended a support position and failed to hire a full-time test Hire an administrative assistant and coordinator for more than_ a year. Unprecedented numbers oftest vio_lations two assistant test coordinators. occurred during that period. External evaluators undertook all eight, finding many errors in dat_a from Review needs for comprehensive data PRE oversee eight management. Implement a policy and step-2 evaluations. LRSD and encountering delays in access to \"high-stakes\" test results. . procedures with sufficient resources. Board approved new assessment policy written by PRE. Complete currently partially complete PRE produced a draft district \"portfolio\" with three of five intended kinds of information. data warehouse, with more resources if Embed assessments PRE began plans for a \"data warehouse'.' to support :frequent assessments, necessary. Test and further develop in LR.SD operations. but LRSD substituted an inferior alternative. warehouse for usability. LRSD stopped PRE's stakeholder surveys, intended for the portfolio, and PRE report directly to Board (parallel plans for wellness data. with internal auditor). PRE write eight . PRE wrote each in time for the Board's consideration and approval, but PRE report directly to Board (parallel quarterly updates. LRSD deleted critical comments about LRSD information in the eighth. with internal auditor) . LR.SD cooperate with LRSD maintained its adversarial relations with Joshua, while PRE gradually Reform LRSD's effo1ts toward Joshua. became cooperative. transparency. LRSD submit LRSD submitted on due date, October 16, 2006, with significant errors Reform LRSD's efforts toward compliance report. which it corrected the following week. transparency. ...... 00 Page 5 of 5 - - - - - - - - --------------- JOSHUA COMMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S DRAFT EVALUATIONS One purpose of Section 2. 7 .1 is to assess [ or evaluate] programs to determine whether they work to \"[improve] African American achievement .. \" In the eight court-required evaluations, the principal method for determining such effectiveness of programs is to consider changes in the test scores of students served, compared to similar students not in the programs . Other information provided about the programs evaluated is more subjective ( the opinions of principals, teachers, students and parents about the programs). . The evaluations recognize the importance of descriptions of the programs and the extent ofimplementation. E.g., Read 180 evaluation at 3; 21 st Century Community Learning Centers _ Evaluation at 5. There are some shortcomings in this regard. The value of the evaluations would be greatly enhanced if these matters were addressed. It has been noted previously that without such information there is a limited basis for attributing the observed pattern of student outcomes to the program.being evaluated.  Read 180 The problem is most clear with regard to the Read 180 evaluation. There is no one place in the evaluation where a comprehensive description of the program is found. Thus, there is no basis for a reader to consider v..rhether the content of this program would, logically, be expected to improve a student's scores on either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or the Arkansas Benchmark examinations or both. An answer to this question in the light of a strong program description, by a person(s) knowledgeable about the skills and knowledge addressed in the two varieties of standardized tests , would be most helpful. Attachment 19 One problem with the Read 180 program description appears on page 50. The text reads: \"The Read 18 0 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses.\" This would see1:1 to mean that in one-half of the 10 participating schools ( at 12, 10 schools in the study), Read 180 operates as what could be termed a \"pull out\" program, replacing the regular curriculum. In the other five, it seemingly supplements the regular program. It is hard to understand the latter answer given the time involved in the Read 180 program. The exposure of students to the regular curriculum content (or lack thereof) is of great importance. We understand that the Arkansas Benchmark exams are designed to test mastery of that curriculum. If, in tact, Read 180 is a pull out program, the test result analysis suggests that exposure to the regular curriculum is a better option. Without a good description of the Read 180 program, however, one can't tell .if this outcome is due to a disconnect between Read 180 content and test content. In brief, we are unclear about these matters: is the Read 180 program a pull out program replacing the regular curriculum? Is it a supplemental program so that students receive both the regular curriculum and Read 180? How does the content of Read 180 compare with the regular curriculum and the content of the relevant tests? The Read 180 evaluation at page 89 states: \"The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions.\" We understand this to mean that despite the overall success of the matched pair approach, statistical.ly, the method of selecting students might have placed weaker students in the Read 180 program. The discussion of how students were selected is very terse. [Draft at 50; one 3-line sentence] It is also problematical. It begins [at 2 Attachment 20 I I I I I I I I I 50] \"Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%) . .. \" We understarid that there were other.students with the same scores in each school. Thus some other selection criteria were seemingly employed. The matter of the selection criteria requires more attention due to the caution about \"selection effects.\" 21st CCLC A dominant feature of this evaluation is the content showing that in most schools student participation was insufficient to allow strong conclusions on the program's effectiveness in improving African American achievement as shown by test scores. [Evaluation at 68-76] Beyond this, the evaluation could be strengthened with regard to description of the content of the program at each school, particularly as it related to content which could be expected to contribute directly to improved test scores. 1 The initial description of program content is very general. It identifies a slate of possible activities and then states: \"Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population.\" [At 1] There is additional description of program content at pages 45-47. However, it appears to be insufficient to allow a judgment of whether students ' skills and test outcomes could be e;xpected to grow due to the content of the program, it attendance were adequate. There is here no description of program content at Southwest Middle School where somewhat more than one-half of the participants were \"substantially served.\" [At 69] The impact of the program at Southwest [at 72, 75] must be read in this light. 1 . Participation might have indirect effects on achievement, if, for example, it lead to positive feelings on individual worth, or to good feelings about school, leading in turn to better attendance, more attention in the classroom, greater diligence regarding homework, etc. 3 Attachment 21 ., f\\lOV 14 uo IL:4.UP Kooen 1-'ressman JORN\" ~r. 1rVALKER., P.A. ATTOR.L\"\\i'\"EYS AT L~ W . 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR...CU.NSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.,X (50 i) 3'7.i-4187 p.11 JOENW. WALKER OFCOUNSEI. SHA \\v-::{ CHILDS Via. Facsimile - 447-7609 December 1, 2005 ROBERT McHEl'l\"R.Y, ? .A 3210 ? .. BfDERSCN csOAI LlTTLE ROCK, A.R ..'Z ..\u0026gt;,NSAS 7221 ( ?HC-NE: (:50l ) 374-3425  ?A..:((501) J-;2-342~ E~i(A.Il : m:h,m-...ctr.:r1s-.vbcU .n~ Dr. Karen DeJ an1ette Director, PRE Little Rock School Disu-ict 80 West Mar.kham Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJ a.mette: \\Ve note that tn your first quarterly report to the Court, you have identified seven persons including their positions. as members of the team of highly trained professionals for the PRE. Would you, therefore, please provide the following: l) the period of time each PRE staff person b.:;s served in their position; 2) whether any additional persons have been hired since June 30, 2005; 3) whetherthere have been any replacements since June 30, 2005; 4) whether any persons have left and the reasons therefor since June 30, 2005; 5) whether any vacated position was a result of an administrative decision to do,,;,,nsize PRE; and 6). whether there are currently any vacancies in PRE, if so, what position, Thank you for your attention to this request. Jv,rrN :j s c::: l\\'fr Gene Jones, ODivI Nrr. Chris Heiler Attachment 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION RECEIVED TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 NOV 3 0 2006 OfflCEOF IRtGRE6ATION IIONITOBING You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at I :30 p.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 By:~ jjJ}L b'l~ ChristophrHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones(cv,mwsgw.com siones@jlj.com j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 [~~ Chri; herHeller 2 RECEIVED NOV 3 o 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFflCEOF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Margie Powell, - Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. \\ Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ fJ,JL 1;, t;e,,.. Christopherelle . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com jolmwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray  U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922- 1994) BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P.A. E CLARX, JR., P.A. P. LEGGETT, P.A. WY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. )AMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSEU Ul, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELLZABETH ROBBEN Ml/RRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMlnt, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WlLUAM M. GRlmN Ill, P.A MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. WALTER M. EBn Ill, P.A. KEVlN A. CRASS, P.A. WILUAMA. WADDELi.JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. )AMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. UGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDN'ER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H, MOORE, P ,A, DA VtD M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JONANN C. CHILES, P.A. R.. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. DEITY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL HERRINGTON, P.A. VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Deposition Dear Joy: FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-3762147 3  25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 727034111 TELEPHONE 4711152011 November 30, 2006 J, MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. MAR VIN L. CHlLOERS K. COLEMAN WESTIIROOK, JR., P.A. AULSON J. CORNWELL P.A. ELLEN OWENS SMITH. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN, P.A. BRUCE B. TLDWEU, P.A. JOSEPH P. MCKAY, P.A. ALEXANDRA A. lFRAH, P.A. JAY T. TAYLOR. P.A. MARTIN A. KASTEN, P.A. BRYAN W. DIJJCE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHEUE ATOR. P.A. KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM LORENCE KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE STEVEN L BROOKS H, WAYNE YOUNG, JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KlMBERLY D. YOUNG JASON N. BRAMJ.ETT ORI.AN C. SMITH D. MICHAEL MOYERS SETH M. HAINES ERIN E. CULLUM KRISTOPHER B. KNOX KATHRYN A. KIRKPATRICK 1, ADAM WELLS LAt.TRA I. ASBURY Of COUNSll W1I.LlAM H. SUTTON, P.A. WILLLAM L TERRY WtLUAM L PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JIL, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S0l ,J70-1506 FAX S01-2H-Sl\"1 heller@ftc.ne:c RECEIVED J)e,v ) 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . I understand December 7, 2006 is a more convenient day for your deposition. We will change the date and time to December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Enclosed please find a deposition notice and subpoena for that day. Christopher Heller CJH/bk  ~Hclosw:--es oc w/enc. Notice: All counsel ofrec,oni IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Joy Springer on - Dece~ber 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 @.~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 30, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U, S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner CducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 'Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 2eu4~ ~6JSmith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock-  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000  Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFD~EGREGffi~:~bNITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS .f.. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":9,"next_page":10,"prev_page":8,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":96,"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}}]}}