{"response":{"docs":[{"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","Joshua intervenors","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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["56 page scan, typed"],"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","Joshua intervenors","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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["47 page scan, typed"],"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_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","Joshua intervenors"],"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":["judicial records"],"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_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.)","Joshua intervenors","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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["98 page scan, typed"],"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","Joshua intervenors","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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["63 page scan, typed"],"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"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1769","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1769"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["44 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    U,/63/2666 10: 51 5016045321 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 40481 Filed 10/02/2006 PAGE 01 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATiiERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District states: ~1\\-\u0026lt;9t00 F~ PLAINTIFF oEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for 2005-06 school year. The progress of those evaluations !las been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 15, 2006. ' 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21st Century Community Learning Centers and Read 180, were previously delayed due to the unavailability of Benchmark Examination results, but it now appears that those evaluations will be filed by the current due date of October 15~ 2006. Sec email from lt,/t,::l/ 2f:l06 10; 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 02 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 4 Aaron McDonald, attached as Exhibit A. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Lileracy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. The NORMES data proved not to be sufficiently detailed to meet the evaluators' needs for the Pre-K Literacy Evaluation, and LRSD has contracted with Riverside Publishing to provide that data. PRE is now in the process of working with Riverside in an effort to get usable QELI data to CREP within the next few days. 4. Dr. Ross, in an email which was provided to the Court on September 29, 2006, says that CREP \"will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete [ the PreK Literacy] Report by November 15th .\" 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to insure the delivery of a useful Pre-K Literacy Program Evaluation which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions ' about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. 6. Mr. Walker's letter to the Court of September 26, 2006 indicates that he understands the need for the requested extension, but counsel for LRSD was unable to 2 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 3 of 4 contact him today to confirm that. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of time within which it must file the draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program to and. including November 15, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 2, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.qr.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj .com johnwaJkeratty@aol_.com 3 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 4 of 4 and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J, Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201  Isl Christopher Heller 4 l t:l/ t:J;j/ :Lt:lt:lb l !:I: 51 5016045321 US0C PAGE 05 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 ~ 1 of 4 Chris Heller - .RE: three evatuatfoas From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Chris, \u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphls.edu\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fcc.net\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 9:16 AM RE: three evaluations \u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; ~ a follow-up to our phone conversation on Friday, I wanted to let you know that we are-planning on sending the drett READ 180 and 21.t CCLC reports to the dlsbid on the 1st\". The 21 st CCLC sd1ool that had attendance data anomallee will be excluded from the anafyaia. We are still In the procesa of revleWtng the PreK deta wttt, Jim Wohlleb. Beatrrd, Aaron McOoneld ......... ____________ .....-____ -_______ l'l'Offll Steven M Ross (sml'0$S) Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:39 PM To: Chris Heller Cc: Aaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmatnld) - subject: RE: three evaluations Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, 'IN 38152-3340 file://C:\\Document5%20and%20Settina\\Brendak\\Local%20Settinas\\Temo\\GWl00002;H... 10/1./2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURJAECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarto/,lY Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously. filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua  Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; tq ,have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a . highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 ' ' by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September l, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the . Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year.. Id. As part .of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hmng a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.'~ The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating . a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting - within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the ' . . LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LR.SD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross .and Catterall. 19. LR.SD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LR.SD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LR.SD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated ;. during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross - assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight fonnal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-q6 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be fonnally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2. 7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. Sept~mber 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools . throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step  2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. fu each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate . number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements ofparagraphE of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the -eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary ofLRSD's commitments to the modifications - recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance.Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM . and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of.the_ eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update; p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive  program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. The~e quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December l, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LR.SD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 - LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status .. of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided - them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for  the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance wjth extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluatiohs for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD' s substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 m accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Clrristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: .. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - JudgeJ.ThomasRay U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 .\u0026lt;?_t 3Q _ . Career Objective: Prefeuional Experience: 1998-Prcaent Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Prof ess.lonally Related Activities: Danyell CrutchfleJd Cummlnp S Ben Hopn Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 7221G (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progrcssi ve educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Ens]iah Tcacbor !. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervi:iion, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R.Qck Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator CoW1cil of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225--$439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (,Ol) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)666-621_6 home Filed 10/16/2006 ~~1:1 .. ~ ?..! . .O.I. ~0 . ____Ca_se_ _4:8_2-_cv-_00 866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~ge 22 ~!}0_ _ ,. .. _______ , . ., .. _ , _________ , Career Objective: Profeuioul Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prcscnt Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Profea,Jonally Related ActMdes: Danyell CrutcbReld Cumminp 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkanau 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environmmt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master ofEducatioo, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R~k Acting Assistant Principal Section S04 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 P_9ge g~_qf 30 . References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (S0l) 447 ... 300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SO 1) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (S01) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 81 Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the  flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and -~s compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines- . while maintaining high performance.  Proven Reliability This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. I. EXHIBIT I ______-.; ;;__i 13----~ LRSD BI Tools ....!,____ .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which hot1ses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided fo the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise - Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key  Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications.   The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBIToou Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users ( e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. Tiris greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles  Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An lRSD Bl Tools Pnge J o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a .Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is   then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Pag~4of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs.  CLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp\u0026lt;;mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive. Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that  .recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless.  . Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Too/3 Page6of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intellj,gence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology pro:Vides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Toois Page 7 o/7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 o 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4048) is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD's draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger \u0026amp;-kansas Attorney General ' s Office Wi,tlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P. Th ompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewel lyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts . gov A:~~age-Id :\u0026lt;767706@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; ~ bject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pul aski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Extend Time \" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid l ater charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/19/2006 at 9 : 55 AM CDT and filed on 10/18/2006 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . a red . us courts. gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl ?2 6052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume nt Number : 4053 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the d ocument : http : //ecf . ared. uscourts . gov/cgi-bin /show_case_ doc?4053 , 26052 , , MAGIC ,,, 2005489 Docket Text: ORDER granting [4048] Motion to Extend Time ; LR$D ' s draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m. , Wednesday, November 15 , 2006 . Signed by Judge William R. Wi lson Jr. on 10/18/06 . (mkf, ) The following documen t (s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a a lectronic document Stamp : - STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date= l 0/19/2006] [FileNumber=767705-0] [b3ec8779c91ae546773eb22665c07b6afe5b 95858074548ablf66cdblb0e7c7bcafb4796bdlde8a 537ae2ba51becd736a5c7340c96eeef5323b45b8d3lb59545]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R . Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark . hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, a ngela . dover@arkan sasag.gov Christopher J. He ller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net ; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj . com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast . net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabriel mail.com -4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 Qffl:Eff llUBATIONIO'-IU\"\"\"maG-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINEKNIGHT,ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT  For its Re;,visectC0mpliance'Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio,  have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the r~sponsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. . I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding fo 1 th,e PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed . the :resting Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, . 2p96 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he . approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded :i coII1prehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to 'supP.ort its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14; The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis_trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 _Qll;arterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of' planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit . B, to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD 's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluat~d by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated _ during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally. F-Y~uated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December L: 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluatio:q.s must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-Americ~ students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See Jun~, 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the reConm,iended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE ..  . notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June I, and September I of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006; June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided t11:~m to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 ~choo~ year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.   40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 schooi year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to aJ?:d including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send' .. \" notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: - Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 Career ObJecttve: Pnd'euJonaJ Experience: 2004-PIOSCD! 1998-Proent Edacadon: Danyell Crufchffeld CuDIIDIDil S Bm Hopn Cove Little Rock. ArbDIU 7211G {501) 407-8497 (501) 447-1737 To utillzo proven academic and profoaiOJW oxpienco to obtain a . : , chUcrnging po1itioa as an admiailltrator that will allow fer growth and an opportuni1)' to contribute to . proareqivo educatiooal environmcm. High Schools That Wo'fk Ccordinafor J. A. Fair Sytcml Magnet Higb School Little Rock. Arbmas 72210 Randy Rlahc,dord, Principal Bqliah Tcadior 1. A. Fair Symim Masaet Hi\u0026amp;h Sohool Little .Rookt Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthafo:d, Principel May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educ.atiou.l Administration and Supcmion, University of .Amnsas at Little Rock Docomba', 199! Muter of Education, Scoondary Edue\u0026amp;tioo. Univel'lfty of Aibmal at Utde Ro\" May, 1997 Bichel of Ans, English, Univc:rafty of Arlamsu at Little Rook ProtN.lloPally .R.elattcl .Acdvitfa: Actina Aasiatant 'Principal Scetioa 504 Coordinator Council ofSecondaey Edacatlon Slakcbolder Southern Realoaal Education Board U\u0026amp;eracy Team mombcr Teacher oftbe Year Bdu(lational Spul!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ----- -------- ..  --- --. -. - Refcreuca: Linda Young Granta Coo.rdilultor (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-$439 home Till Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Bl.cmcutary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Hearillg . (SO]) 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cawcy, EdJ\u0026gt; Assistant Prin0ipal  1.A. Fair Syscems Magnet High School (SOl) 447-1700 ~ 1710 work (501)6~6-6216 homo Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 . Page 22 of 30 -------- \"------~----------- Educailon: DaayeU Crutchfilld Cummlap 5 Bea Hogan Cove Llttle Rock, Aruu,u 72210 (501) 407--8897 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and p-ofossional cxpericncc lo obcain a   ' challenging position u an administrator that will allow (or growth and an opportunity to contnl,utc w a pl'OjJ'Cluivc educational onvinimncut. High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Pair Sy1lcms Mapet Hlgb School Little Jlgok, Arb.mu 72210 Randy Rutherford. Principal EnsJish Tcachet J. A. Fair Syn:ms Magnet Bish School Littlo Rode, Arwsu 12210 Randy Ruthcrford,_Priuclpal May, 2005 Educational Spec!llist, Educational Administration and SUpezviaio,; University of Arbnsa1 at Little R.oclc D'\"mber, 1998 , M..t ofBducatioa, Sooonday ROJCation, Univonlty of Arbasas at Little Rook May, Im Bachelor of Art,, Bnglllh, l'rvleu!onaDy Rtlated ActMtlu: University of Arkansai at Little Rode ActiJJa Auismit Prillcipll Section 504 Comlioator Couocil of Secondary Education S1akcboldet Southom Regional Bducatioa Board Lkenlcy Team member Teacher oflhe Year BduoadOllll Spoclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ .. ,, .. ---- llercraca: LindaY01111g Gram Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 homo mi Brooks PrincJpal David O'Dodd Elementary (-'01) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Bt0adnlx, Bd,D Student Hearinl (501) 447.3532 work (501)4-07.0817 homo SbaroD Cauley, Bd.I) Aasiatant .Principal J.A. Fair S)'ICcml ~ot High School (501)4471700 c:xt. 1710 W0C'k (SOI) 666-621.6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The Bl Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofB[ tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability aod Hlgll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, mM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platfonn, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability .is a key issue. Business Objccta Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters ofmachineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platfomi _:_:_~_/'/i_~_m_ee_t_th_e_n_ced__o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_c_R_oc_k_S_c_hoo_l_D_is_tn_c_t-to_da_y_an_d_to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ___,.( _I _B _EXHI_M _r ) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system arc a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Nonnalized Data This data. securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority ofti,.e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligenco products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporttnz aUows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objccta Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required .knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is pcrfonncd using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Perfonnance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. CrystaJ Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LBSDB/To1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can dciign within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage crossplatform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports arc easily published to the web, for better busip.ess decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be e,cported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powa-ful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic apd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain natic prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily ma1ce their own document modifications. Report Ewort Copflguntlon . The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula cm\u0026gt;rs, and dependency i,sues. Thia greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Buslness Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data soun:es and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level secwity processes. An LIISD Bl Tool# Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional sc:rvicc in Crystal Enterprise, Busim:ss Views aUow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by ~ulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business Viow in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Conncctipns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fo1D1dation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily ro-use various components of .one Busmcss View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can acrve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rocle School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that arc NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of diff ercnt reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters aIJd map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report de.sign based on a Business View will respect tho underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator e-0ntext) and then filter the report every time a user views it All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. UISDBITPou Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-conswning and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, cluipging fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthe same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store ~nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects .Enterprise InfoVfew Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infoID1ation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web lntelllgence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And reque\u0026amp;ts to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users tum educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved. and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root cawes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntellf gence Busin=is Objects OLAP Intelligaice is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced amlysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform I.RSD II Tool, Pq,So/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP . The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis QI.AP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to selcct-dimep.sions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OL.AP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rieb Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering. highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an 1D1cluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hlde specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of.breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, WM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbasc 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Dlstn'\"bution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and worldlows, Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to B.usJoess Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workoook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perfomi advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powezful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Emloratlon LJISD BJ TOIIU Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that usen can navigate and exj:)lore-.summariz.ed infoonation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelli~t navigation without the need to understand the complexities of widerlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBJTooJ, l'qa7o/7 uFILi=o -.-, E4sret DISrRt~ co   .: IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT AA~SAs -} EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER  DCT27 2CQ; .: JA~ M By~\u0026lt;~~~~.gL,,_ ~AINTIFF\"2:Jge',i, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC'') for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2005-2006 school ~ear and proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 28, 2006 ( attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the MRC's final budget for the 2005-2006 school year and proposed 2006-2007 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ay of October, 2006. A1~  -:::::::;;2.-\u0026lt;---- ~ DISTRICT JUDGE Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} September 28, 2006 The Honorable W11Iiam R. Wllson. Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Judge Wtlson: On September 26, 2006, Marte Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the actual expenditures for 2005-06, as well as the proposed budget for the 2006-07 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was presented to MRC members for their review on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of 6-0, approved the final budget (actual expenditures) for the 2005-06 school year but are withholding their vote for approval of the proposed 2006-07 budget until all parties have been given the opportunity to review the proposed budget. The Magnet Review Committee has scheduled their next meeting for October 17, 2006 to vote on the proposed budget at that time. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Court for approval: FINAL 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $28,849,578 .00, was based on a per-pupil expenditure of$7,468.00, calculated from a projected three quarter average enrollment of 3,862.90 students. Once the actual attendance (3,831.12) and expenditure ($29,224,702.00) numbers were determined, the final per pupil amount was calculated to be $7,628.00, which was $160.00 more than originally budgeted. This increased cost is primarily attributable to the adjustments in the school funding formula as a result of the recent Lakeview decision. A Funding By Source schedule is shown on Page 2 of the attachment presenting the costs allocated to each of the four ( 4) parties. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson. Jr. September 28, 2006 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2005-2006 finalized budget in the amount of $29,224,702.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $7,628.00, attached herewith. Even though the budget Draft 2 contains figures for the proposed 2006-2007 budget, the Magnet Review Committee is not asking the Court's approval at this time. The proposed 2~2007 budget will be submitted to the Court after representatives ftom each party bring their recommendations to the Magnet Review Committee meeting on October 17, 2006.   .. , The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sJ Attachment: Final 2005-2006 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget Actual Expenditures (Draft 2) -..oc: Office ofDesegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee '.:- : ;;:~r~;..;1~:[~~~:m ~~~:~v~r:~ti:m 1:r:~~ !~~~~~m~: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $577,006 $590,057 6.0 $605,528 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $704,187 $719,586 10.0 $739,257 03 Soecialists 40.2 $2,060,208 $2,095,071 40.2 $2,178,546 04 Counselors 13.5 $745,758 $755,548 13.5 $819,990 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $333,386 $342,566 6.5 $369,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $135,929 $138,721 3.0 $147,146 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Forei~in Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.9 $442,679 $452,002 7.9 $506,912 10 Soecial Education 15.5 $621,519 $624,198 16.5 $700,071 11 Gifted 5.4 $296,023 $302,527 6.4 $353,735 12 Classroom 202.9 $9 892,360 $10,105,508 201 .9 $10,247,836 13 Substitutes o.o $293,000 $347,950 0.0 $310,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $729,204 $782,522 15.0 $772,934 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 325.9 $16,831,258 $17,256,256 326:9 $17,751,721 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $621,784 $640,002 21.4 $686,358 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $273,520 $280,670 6.0 $292,918 17 Custodians 28.9 $572,555 $576,668 28.9 $612,444 18 Information Seivices 1.0 $65 554 $66,547 1.0 $68,780 19 Paraorofessionals-Other 4.0 $176,869 $182,943 3.0 $163,884 20 Other-Aides 26.0 $490,064 $474,617 28.2 $560,984 21 FrinoeBenefits(20 \"' $0 $5,189,424 '''''' \"'  $5,830,809 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.3 $7,744,958 $7,410,871 88.5 $8,216,177 TOTAL(10-20l ,    ,,,, ,,, $24576,216 $24,667,128  $25967,898 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ' -- .,., $ 589 700 $ 719,885 .,., ., \" ,, , ' $798 500 SERVICES 1-2::::3:-+.:T:-\"ra\"'\"v\"\"'e:-\"I- -------fiii.:. i.'m- \"m:~: /  $ 40,000 $ 46,655 ' .. , ., , ., . $35,500 po) 24 Maintenance Aareements . ~ - _:, $0 $0 , --~ ,. .... , $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ' CAPITAL OUTLAY (50} OTHER (60) 25 Other '  ' $ 285 368 $ 259,970 '-' \" ,, :: ' $237, 130 TOTAL(30) 26 Princioal's Office 27 Regular Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equioment 31 Buildina Reoalr etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other -. . $ 915,068 $ 1 026510 \"\"'':'\"''\" $ 1071,130 ;:~ : !~:E~ : a:::E ltll s::~:~ ., ._,, ,, ''  $ 24,273 $ 27,819  .\";w. '. $ 28,873 \"'\" $ 881,653$ 916,962 ''.:' . . , .... '. $ 749,125  , \" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 :--,. ' ' $ 57 200 ,  . , . , '' '' $0 $0 .,  , ... , '' '\" . $0 ., ....... ... , ., $0 $0 .,,. ,, $0 '.\"''\" .: , \";\" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 : $ 57,200  : . ,.,, , $ 7,800 $ 3,390 , $ 4,856 .. ,., '  . - . $0 $0 ' '  \"., ....... ' $0 TOTAL (60) '' .,., \"'  ,,.,, $ 7,800 $ 3,390 \"\" \"\" \"'  $ 4,856 TOTAL (30-60) =-~,~t- ~r ~i  - $ 1,874,836 $ 2 161 988 S 1,882,311 TOTAL (10-60} 413.1 $ 26,451,052 $ 26,829,116 415.3 $ 27,850,209 ro.TAL LINE ITEMs ttl~~~!~=~irAU\\llt~l~Ji,fJ:: - ri,: 1111~~:;i:~;:: i1:;:it1:iJ;: 1:;;;,;, ,.,  :?::;::: r: mi~~i:,i MAGBK07A ~i,i~ijf~ttt'hJ,~f,',f~J iftte.1Q~1stl ~if #fJf4t~Iit;l~:tl~ ij~f : .' :~~~:.:, ,,,. ,'ij ~rb:fi;iai,Vk~ii~~~I~tm4ll~l~t~~-i~ 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 Stipends $29,600 $52 951 $41,250 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $2,194,000 $2 227,287 $2,312,522 Vocational $32,800 $32,712 $32,800 Athletics $101,626 $60,936 $65,799 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $13,201 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1,500 $1.500 Soecial Education $4,000 $4,000 ~ .000 Curriculum $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 )00()()()( )()()()00( Total Line Items $2,398,526 $2,395,586 $2 492,871 Rii.!;:_ : .:~t~~~-i li~P~t -_' .. : .}  ..:~ ~!~ ,862.90 3 3,831.00 E~~J~'.B~'.~~i~!$(1!~liji ~1~.t~~~'f.\\i~r, rb':iiM~af.lJt,11i): f~Ji:ieffi'~ ~l~ $'.!i~m'.Billl.:!J,~tt1~:if~~~!~i)]@!)~. 2005-06 2005-06 2006--07 Slate of Arkansas $14 424 069 $14,611,930 $15,171,275 LRSD $9,248,057 $9,260,815 $9,614,975 PCSSD $3 443,532 $3,567,768 $3,704,342 NLRSD $1 733,920 $1,784,189 $1,852,488 Total Costs $28,849,578 $29,224,702 $30,343,080 MAGBK07A - t0~~1J~ l~l~~t(~S~h}fm! O!t~t~fsll.t:i~ (i'.,i${%\\:.t; 1!:l';b,,6~~ ~~~i~{ij)pt(l~}\\,fmfi _ ;.,p.r.~ei~t1ik~i~~~iw JWt~~~a~Ht.;}:a,, ~tf'~I::~ r~~~ffiJ.tiojii1:iJtttJ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,186 $ 95 068 1.0 S 97,930 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 70,837 $ 72,120 1-0 $ 74,401 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 405 782 $ 419,228 8.0 $ 434,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 107,304 S 109,708 2.0 S 115,886 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $ 59,967 S 67,117 1.5 $ 70,377 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational . 0.0 0.0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 51,587 $ 52,678 1.0 $ 11 Gifted 77,720 $ 78,956 1.4 $ 12 Classroom 937,752 $ 949,474 21 .5 $ 13 Substitutes $ 38,000 s \"45,797 0.0 $ 14 other-KinderQarten 246,467 $ 254,281 5.0 S TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $2,088,601 $2, 144 426 42.4 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 82,152 $ 84,582 3.0 $ STAFF 16 Nurses 41,328 $ 42,204 1.0 $ 17 Custodians 75,503 $ 74,193 4.0 $ 18 Jnfonnation SeMoes 10,928 $ 11 ,093 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-other $0 $0 I 0.0 20 other-Aides 97,165 $ 92,145 5.2 $ 21 708,611 $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1 ,015,687 $1,009,939 13. TOTAL(10-20) '\" ,,,. $3,104,289 $3,154,365 ., ... , ._,._, 58,500 $ 7,000 $ $0 PURCHASED Z2 Utilities  .. $$ 69,185 ,, \" .,. ,~ $ SERVICES 23 Travel 14,276  ,.,. ,. \"  $ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 .,, ...... '.\"'.  25 other . . : _. $ 30,013 $ 29,566 ., .,,, '  - $ TOTAL(30) ' , ' $ 95,513 $ 113,027 _,,., ,, ., $ i--,-MA-:-:-::TE=R.,.,IAL,..,..,,S,.., ..,...,26=-t::p,-ri,..nci\"\"'i-p,a\"\"'r,..s-=o\"'ffi:-ce-\"-''--~----m! $0 ;, '\"~\":'. : . SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom \" . -~ $ (40) i-;2~8+M;;;edw,;i;.;;a:;;,_;;==~----f,, ~;r.,;,-t: '. $ 29 other '.' :', ... . '\"' $ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc: 32 other TOTAL(SO) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) .,,,.,,.,-,: :': : ', $ __ ,,; ._,.,,,., $ ,.: ; P'V ;.,, . . ~ ....... ..  .. ,. -; .. , ... ,,,, $ :ii,;,}~ $ ,, ,.,,., ,, '. $ 55.6 $0 77,500 7,500 3,125 88,125 8,500 $0 $0 8,500 1,000 $0 1,000 $193,138 $3,297,427 $293,462 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77,766 '\" '.:'/\"? '' $ 4,915 . ,, $ 4,206 ,_::: .... :. $ 86,888 \"  \"   $ 2,747 '.  ::''.' $ $0 : ,:: ' ' '' $0 .... ,, -\",, ,; 2,747 .: .. : ' __ ' $ 680 , , . '.',' ' $ $0 ::\"'~ -~, 680 :~:'.'. ' \" ,,,. $ $203,342  ' ,... ,. '. ' $3,357,707 55.8 $298,017 ,,,, ................ ,,., 55,473 82,401 912,879 45,000 282,919 $2,171,558 89,904 44,784 81,606 11,466 $0 102,011 739,450 $1,069,220 $3,240 778 75 800 5000 $0 20,113 100,913 $0 87,057 5,500 3,827 96,384 6,000 $0 $0 6,000 1,000 $0 1,000 $204,297 $3,445,075 $314,693 ~ ~~l~*r,{l~~fifi';t.'t{~,,~m~1t 2005-06 2005--06 2006--07 Stipends $4,250 $5,336 $8,750 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $283,903 $269,788 $300,610 Vocational $0 $0 . $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $133 $134 $134 Plant Services $4141 $1,716 $4,160 Reading $85 $65 $85 Science SO $0 SO Enqlish $194 $195 $195 Special Education $518 $520 $520 Curriculum $259 $260 $260 )00()()()( XXXlOOC Total Line Items $293,462 $298,017 $314,693 655 724 $3,759,769 - ~ -ffC!~~$jI 1:tit~~1ff'l)${11JirmwR IJtil'~llU@J~m,;:~;f))i ]1!'.~ ~ i. ii~~}~'M1rrt~~~ - WF;tTs~ ri \\7,~~~~ri;,'p~~t{1I1tmmt~iiU\\tm,f\u0026gt;f~ 'i'*~i1:~ ~g~P,ffi~mi$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,172 $ 96,557 1.0 $ 97,781 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 329,753 $ 291,812 6.8 $ 330,833 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 53,465 $ 56,201 1.0 $ 57 448 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 61,583 $ 63 000 1.0 $ 64,947 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 0.0 o.o 08 FOfeign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 0.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 68,322 $ 69 765 1.5 S 73,956 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 55 932 1-0 $ 57,557 12 Classroom 16.2 $ 728,828 $ 719,117 152 $ 703,820 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28000 $ 27,763 0.0 $ 25000 14 Other-Kinder\u0026lt;1arten 2.0 $ 105,715 $ 106 393 98,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SAL.ARY 30.5 $1,523 399 $1486541 $1,509,680 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 30,736 $ 27 792 1.4 $ 33,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 34 548 $ 36,886 1.0 $ 39,046 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 67,314 $ 68,316 3.0 $ 70,869 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,928 $ 11,093 0.2 $ 11,466 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.3 $ 60,630 $ 65,456 4.3 $ 62,761 21 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 9.9 $714,972 $676,423 9.9 $730,034 TOTAL (10-20\\ ... ,. $2,238 372 $2,162,963 ,, ' : ' _ $2,239,714 PURCHASED 22 Utllities ... . :: .  $ 34 000 $ 47,642 '\" ' \" ,,.,.. $ 49,000 SERVICES 23 Trawl ~:.:;,..,_,. $ 7 000 $ 12 457 ' ,, $ 5,000 (30} 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ' :iciii'' $0 $0 ,, H-.-: $0 25 MATERIALS, 26 ~:::: . ~:Ill. .~:;: ~ : :  ' \" $ 35 8~~ $ 40 :,~ . ::' :~ ,,, ' $ 36,:S Other .....  ' $ l-,----c==.,,...,...,,,.,_.,....,,..,,4,,,-,--,---,,-.:.'f.,:::O,:..:TA..::L:..J(..::;30;;,Jl\\:._ _ -m_ :: Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) $ 2,500 $ 1 604 \"' \" ~'. ' ,...  $ 2,500 $ 1,953 $ 2581 \" '\"' _.,,. $ 3,174 $ 40,253 $ 45,091 . . .  $ 42,262 EQuipment '..: ' ,,. $ 16,904 $ 141288 ' \"\" ,,  , $ 11,500 Building Repair, etc. .,.,,  /'! ,, . $0 $0 i ' ~ ~ 1 .~ $0 {50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 ---=-,.,....,..=---.---+Oth-,----er---=T_O_TA_L_(._50__.1)~..-.-.,1\". ...... ....- -.. $$ 16,~ $ 141,2: ~ ~'~ $ 11,5: Dues and Fees 1,000 $ 499 '.'.::.~ .. \u0026gt; $ 500 Other . . ... . $0 $0    :':' : $0 TOTAL(60) ,.,  , \"  s 1,000$ 499 , .. ,, .,.,  , $ 500 TOTAL (30-60) ' : ..  ' $127,057 $269,824 ' ... .. ,, ,~ $132,000 TOTAL (10-60) 40.4 $2,365,429 $2,432,788 39.4 $2,371,714 TOTALUNEITE    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1766","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-07/2006-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Magnet schools","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1766"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["31 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for extension of time and motion for Little Rock School District (LRSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     lllcc,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIL CO EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  J. 8 2006 WESTERN DIVISION tr; ~F!/Ct o,  11011 M01111t:J,,.,._ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLA~ V. LR-C:-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004,Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on June 1, 2006. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2006. 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180, cannot be completed without an electronic file of individual student results from the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2005-06 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until late July or early August. LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once the data is received by PRE. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Literacy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. NORMES recently announced that the posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. PRE now expects to provide the QELI database to Dr. Ross by early August. 4. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that they will be able to deliver draft program evaluations within six to eight weeks after receiving the benchmark and QELI data. The draft evaluations must then be reviewed and finalized in accordance with LRSD' s evaluation policy. Letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful program evaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to 2 continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2007-08 school year. 6. LRSD has contacted counsel for the Joshua Intervenors concerning this Motion and was informed that the Joshua Intervenors would like to take additional time to consider their response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file Draft Step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year to and including October 15, 2006, and an extension of the time within which it must file final Step 2 program evaluations to and including November 17, 2006. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK . Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar No. 81083) 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller 3 CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICE I certify that on July 18, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagerneier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr: Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller 4- JUL.25.2006 4:56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0.473 P.2 Case 4:82.cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Flied 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN nm UNUED STATES DIS'IRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKICOUNTYSPECIALSCHOOL . DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR. LRSD To SHQW CAUSE Come now the Joshua Intcrvenors who respectfully oppose the little Rock School District Motion to Extend Time and Motion For LRSD To Show Cause. On July 19, 2006, the court directed counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to promptly respond to the LR.SD s Motion for Extension of Time in which to file its Step 2 evaluations with the court now due Cl1 October 1, 2006. Three reasons ~ set forth by LRSD counsel: a) test data from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) will not be available for expert use prior to late July, 2006 with respect to three of the four programs beini evaluated; b) test data from the ADE regarding the fourth program will not be available until early August; and c) after receipt of the describ~ data, experts Drs. Ro$ and Catterall will need betWecn six and eight weeks 1D  prepare their draft repo~. Joshua opposes the LRSD s Motion for Extension of Time. 1oslma also submits that the LRSD Superintc:odent, Roy Brooks, and the IRSD as an entity, are in i. - --- - - - JUL.~~.Z006 4=56PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.473 P.3 Case 4:82-cv-00866--WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/2512006 Page 2 of 6 contempt of court for violating ex.press and implicit directives of the court. Joshua submit, the following additional reasons for their request for Hearing filed June 21, 2006 and for the district to be required to show cause. 1. The court s attention is directed to thr.ee previol.1$ orders which it entered: a) Order dated May 21, 1993; b) Order dated June 30, 2004; and c) Order dated November 29\", 2005. 2. In the Order dated May 21, 1993. the cou:tt compelled the LR.SD to consult with Joshua prior to making desegregation plan altercations. The compliance remedy constitutes an express des~egation plan obligation. Joshua contends that LRSD senior administrators Superintendent Roy Brooks, Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh, and Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts have directed the PRE staff on many occasions to have no cont.act with Joshua reguding PRE compliance remedy activities. The Superintendent s directive t.O the PRE Director Deiamette and hCl' staff was to thwart Joshua s ability to oblain infonnation. In makini known his intention not t.O allow substantive Joshua participation in the evaluation process, on information and belief, Dr. Roy Brocic.s dizcctly threatened to tcrmiDate the employment of Dr. DeJamcttc and her three statisticians if they collaborated and/or communicated with Joshua. He did this on more than one occasion. 3. The above stated LRSD senior officials have refused. to consult with Joshua insofar as the directed evaluation and assessIJ1ell.t process are concerned. This is in contrast to their regular consultations with the ODM monitors. 4. Joshua has souiht to obtain information about PR.E activity regarding plan ,implementation. When information has been requested by Joshua, LRSD has dela}'Cd the production of such information. On the other hand, when ODM requests certain data, UpOn 2 JUL ,25 . 2006 4 : 56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0. 473 P.4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 6 - infonnation and belief: it is provided to the ODM without delay. In order to secure information in a timely fashiou, Joshua counsel began requesting infonnation through use of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AF OJA). This was done not because of any litigation concept, but rather to be sure that information believed to be necessary to Joshua s monitoring function -was provided. On information and belie~ PRE staff has indicated !hat it would provide the information requested by Joshua but LRSD senior ~strators, acting on advice of counsel, have refuse to allow it. S. The court s compliance remedy of June 30, 2004 sets forth in a very specific manner LRSD s charged duties regarding its desegregation obligations. See Section 2. 7 and 2. 7. l of LRSD s 1998 Education Plan. The obligation of the district is to assess/evaluate kt; programs pursuant to Section 2. 7 designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students. The court further directed that the LRSD prepare Step 2 evaluations of key - 2. 7 programs. The LRSD s commitment was to take appropriate action in the form of either modifyina how the program is implemented or replacing the program. During an evaluation team meeting on or about April 18, 2006, the senior administrators of LRSD did not indicate that any of the alleged key programs evaluated for the 2004-200S school year \\Wuld be replaced or discontinued. However, on information and belief, the LRSD, through Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts, has indicated that the programs previously evaluated in compliance with the Court s order and those cUII\"ently being evaluated are not key programs. She has subsequently implemented nine new programs which she has identified as being key. One of the programs has , been assessed by PRE. If the propms previously evaluated or those currently being evaluated are not key programs, then this is another example of LRSD s noncompliance with the court s 3 - - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.S Page 4 of 6 order of June 30, 2004. It is important to note that the evaluation tasks ordered by the Court, or for that pUipose any programs undertake.n by the district are necessarily hampered by the unavailability of a competent database. 6. The court s June 30111 Order directed LRSD to permanently embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and ins~tion program. To that end. LRSD, on the initiative of Dr._ DeJamette, engaged Dr. Victoria Bernhardt as an expert. Her work and that of PRE have been and are being impeded by deficient, incompetent data from the I.RSD. This is due to LRSD s refusal to make the necessary financial commitment to obtain the necessary da1a base for Dr. Bernhard and PRE to perform their assessment and evaluation tasks. As of this date, LRSD is unable to make assessments or evaluations of key 2.7 programs whatever they are! LR.SD thus remains recalcitrant and resistive to appropriate professional implementation of the court c1irted re?11edy. Joshua notes again that the senior adminfar:rators ofLRSD continually - seek to undercut the court ordered compliance ~y. 7. The Order of November 29, 2005 required the LRSD to promptly inform the court and parties when it learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reasun. Joshua. as well as LRSD counsel, learned on June 13, 2006 that the LRSD could not meet eJCPected deadlines for filing Step 2 evaluations. Rather than request an extension of time as directed by the court, LRSD filed a status report on Jwie 28, 2006. See initial letters from the experts which are appended to the LRSD motion for extensiai of time. It is obvious that LRSD implored those letter writers to renew and slightly change the wording in their one month earlier , coirespondencc. See also the July letters from. the experts attached to the Motion for Extension ofTime. 4 ------- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.6 Page 5 of 6 8. Joshua submits that LR.SD s waiting for more than a month to inmrm the court that it needed an extension of time for the filing of required evaluations amounts to contempt of court. 9. The court is essentially faced with the same situation this year that it was faced with lastyeazwhen the court posed five questions to the LRSD. The answers ofLRSDare essentially the same now as then. This makes LRSD s conduct more deliberate and its .implementation evasive, dciiant_and in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Joshua respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order setting a bearing for LR.SD to show cause why it should not be held. in contempt of the previous court orders. Joshua further requests that the senior administrator, of LRSD be required to show cause why they should not be held in Contempt of Colin. Joshla request that the hearing on thi; motion be prompt, i.e., within the next two weeks. Respectfully submitted, /s/Jobn W. Walke,r __________ ___.John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 S0l-374-3758 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jo!,nwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 2si11 day of July, 2006 the follCJWini motion has been filed using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/Jobn W. WalJss: s JUL. ,:::, . a::Mb 4: !::\u0026gt;!:\u0026gt;1-'M JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: F\u0026lt;1X: Re: N0.473 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Artomey at Law 1723 Ero-adway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) J7.:f-3i58 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET '( {)6\"' b BO~ OM - Jf)1ra ti~ I -371.-t:J /1)0 P.1 Sender: J; /w, tJa.i /ur YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [_ _ (.including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIV$ ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501)\"374-3758\u0026gt;\" ---- - - --- The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomey privileged and confldenrinl inform~oo intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not rhe intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it ro the intended rei;ipienr, you nl'e hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying oftbis communication is strictly prohibited. !fyou. have received mis communication in.error, please immediate notify us by teleptlone, and remm the original message ro us at the above address via the U.S. Post.ii Service. Thanlc you. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OfflCEOF PLAINTIFnisEGREGATION ; oNITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 W'4fiHMW@fflfiltst1MfaffMffi'tRMkiWW :~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;:....';: ...... ., ' ~ . : ' ; :: ~ ~ l ' ... ._. . . ' - .~ ~ .:' ; I  .... ' . ~-' ~ - - . . '  -.H, .... ,--,..  ' - '  '~ ri~=~ i::t:r;-:1:~::- :- \\~t;;:,..=-:::-\"j -!.(.:.;_~\\.:~ ~-::;. ;:: r-1 1:. --:=.:T:t)fG..-- . - ,. ~:~ ~ ~~ ;- ,, '/~-~ ,.. ~  , . ~~!'~~:~-;-,-.} .~~: --?) ~ ,:,,:,\u0026gt;: ~~~ - ~:.J71 ,J_:~~._;~!}L~ Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered.by th\u0026amp;Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG _2_- 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS With considerable reluctance, LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4029) is GRANTED. It appears to me that the delay is occasioned by a third party which is not a party to this litigation. I find this frustrating, but I do not believe I have authority to enjoin the third party to move more expeditiously -- even if a hearing revealed that its delay is not based upon good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE e . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. AUG 2 - 2006 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOHITOffiNG ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Joshua's Motion for a Hearing and Motion for LRSD to Show Cause (Doc. No. 4018) are DENIED for the time being. According to Joshua's allegations, the lawyer's for LRSD have failed confer with Joshua's lawyers even after requests for consultation. I make no finding on this allegation, but in the interest of keeping this case on track I direct that counsel for both parties \"meet and confer\" forthwith, with a representative or representatives of the ODM present. Concerns of Joshua's counsel should be fully aired at this meeting. If the lawyers for these parties cannot agree upon a \"meet and confer'' date, time, and place, they are directed to advise me by fax-letter no later than 5 p.m., this Friday, August 4, 2006. In other words, the date, time, and place is to be agreed upon before 5 p.m. this Friday. The \"meet and confer'' session(s) should be held soon thereafter. The ODM should report to me as soon as reasonably possible after the \"meet and confer'' session(s). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 28 United States Court of Appealf - - . FILED ::.--: EAsT U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ERH DISTRICT ARKANSAS Allf, IO 2006 No. 04-2923 -~MES W.~3; CLERK Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, v. Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official .Capacity as a Merribei'ofthe Board of Education of the Little Rock * * * * * * *   * * * * * *  * DEPCLERK I I I I / Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 28 School District, A Public Body; George * Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D. Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and . . * in his Official Capacity as a member of  * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2-   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 28 The Little Rock School District(LRSDfapp:e,a, from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary (status. We affinn. ' I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. I, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-47 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, - 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the di_strict court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed _that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-200 I school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the  Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 28 Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into subs~ntial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong. 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 and the2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- - ' r. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 28 II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD \"partially unitary with regard to all . aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with all sections of the  Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. 7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2. 7 .1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. ofEduc. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 28 gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( l) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. IT People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d l 073, l 076 (7th Cir. 200 l) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we ex~ine LRSD' s compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 28 ( l) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2. 7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an ''Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Learning Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy ( various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development (all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 8 of 28 Plan\" in response to section 2.7. l. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7 .1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2. 7. I. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had implemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students'\" under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at IO 18. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- e  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 9 of 28 achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find thatLRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited pa~sage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of the new curriculum in Engli~h ~anguage arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the Nationat' Science Foundation project aimed at . improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Mt at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" hh at 1077. -9- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 10 of 28 In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long tenn, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perfonn some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district court set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   . B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 11 of 28 C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.l and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the ''Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. l!L at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B and the evaluations of -Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented U)lder  2. 7,\" id. at l 076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp;Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretatiori that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 12 of 28 leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. . . . If there is any ambiguity in the . .. order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD' s Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated that LRSD would \"[c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m ]aintain written records of. .. the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted iri program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 13 of 28 On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its -self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic programs\" (e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Leaming, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 14 of 28 D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs . ... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform \"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2. 7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7 .1 obligations. -14- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 15 of 28 LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court; however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel--even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% ofthetotalnumberofseats inLRSD'sclassrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland y. N.J. Dep't of -15- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 16 of 28 Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\" A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for _two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy, i will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- i.. u Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 17 of 28 experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 program$ that should be formally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 18 of 28 someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieveLRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, Junel, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- ii_ . ...,. . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 19 of 28 K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 20 of 28 filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy th~ requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 21 of 28 are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come ~los~,~-t,0.5!,_~sing !he line between proper j1!sJci9i.aL ,.2, _,_,.._..,. ...\" \"*~~-..~ -;.r.\"'...,:.,... .. .:\u0026amp;.-- ~ --  ~~-r..,,. .. ~, .~ ., - . 1  enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the,  m osition of requirements that r---= ~ ,. _ ,..,..... .   .,. ~ ~   ..- .1. '\"t.~.\"'- ...... --~- :.,,.:...~3,, :,_~c,fsa...:, ,~,,.;.~ ; find no warrantfo that undeftakirig~ did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed ------,-.. ,---~,r-.r,:: ..... '--, -.--\"' w--.-.- ~,r:-.-,,,~-t.~ to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 22 of 28 ,, Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD--not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2. 7 .1 program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpa1d.\"' Id. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- ..  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 23 of 28 ,,.Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way reH7~ing the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the coi;hmitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the f R~vised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from I Jhe ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, / requirements that may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision I at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Ian but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the d-istr-ict -cou-rt a-bus-ed -its d-isc-ret-ion =in im osing t.he. 2.00-4. R-em~edy-. ~ .. ~-- ......~ . - A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472,475 (8th Cir.1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F.3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 24 of 28 Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312F.3d 952,958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ. Dep 't of Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)). As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- ...  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 25 of 28 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 . Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire - a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2. 7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement_by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness\" ofLRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- Case 4:82..:cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 26 of 28 However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those tenns are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the tenns agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new tenns in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement . .. in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but~ would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e) available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 27 of 28 be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- A TR Ct: C1)PY OF Tiff ORIGl::-;'AL MICH_!,.::._L E.. c; _.\u0026gt;,SS. CLER~ UNrrE.D ::-T.:, TES COl-RT OF APPEALS :~~lt~'.A~l~f qa.u- UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 Gene Jones Associate Monitor Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor August 16, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org September 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of' Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza . 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895. RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: :Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sinvly . 0. ~~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer /  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al DEFENPANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 9225 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 ---- - - - . ------ - - - - -- -- --- - - --- - - RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 2006  OFFICEOf LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL  PLAINTIFFSDESEGREGATI0NM0NIT0RING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of D~cember 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the foliowing Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, .1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan . . --------------- - - - - - -- IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date  Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1778","title":"Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Project management","School integration","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1778"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["35 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for hearing; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) brief in support of response to Joshua's motion for hearing; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, response to Court directive of June 21, 2006; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:S2c.\"V-u0866-WR'N ilc:vi nf;/?1/2006 INTIIB TTNTI'ED STATES DIS1lUCT COURT EASTERN mSTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~-n:vlJ nTVT~TnN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT~ ET AL. MRS. 1-0P'PNE JOSJTTTA., ET AL N0.082 P. 2 Page 1 of 2 PLAIN'ra'F INTERVENORS JNTER.VENORS MOTION FOil BEt\\BJNG ON BEHALF OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua I:ntervenors, in compliance with Section I of the little Rocle School District Compliance Remedy fikd June 30, 2004, mpectfully move the Court for a hearing in crder ro b!mg-probll;_'!'mi;. t.n the attention of the Court with respect to the tittle Rock School ~trict s implementation of the Compliance Remedy. '- We have infonned Little Rock School District s counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, about tbi5 motion and while he objects to it, he does not oppose a court hearing. Respectfully submitted, /I/John W, Walker ____________ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Arkansas 72206 ~01-374-1758  501-3744187 (fax) E=::il: jcl;w-\u0026gt;-Jk:3tt'!@11~l.t'.'.om 1  JUN. 21. 2006 4: 1SPM J\"Ol-tl W WALKER P A N0.082 P.3 case 4:is2-cv.:waas-w~w Fl!Ad 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE QF si-:t\u0026lt;VlCi I .fa h~;-eertify_tl!.~t i:m this 21\" day of June, 2006 the following motion has been fiic:d wil~ ~ C~..t.'EC: ::::,':!=:n ~!hkh will i;end notification of such filing to all counsei of recorci. IJ!lohnW,Walp;: 2 --- -- --------- - - - - . I JVl-ft'i W WALKER PA N0,082 T ~ T T\"'l T TTT ..,f,..l_ ,..1...r_-..t..t..V....- .Y.Y -__ UT A 1 V L/ 1)  LJ yy r1..LJ.L~ .I.. I._, ..l.  .. LL A,. .......... \"\".,,; T h1A1 ~ ....... , ,, .... ., -- -- 172J l:f; w:Jrra; Litrie x.ocir. .A.rK(ui.j\"-) 72206 Telephone (50ij 3i4-S7So Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION Cu'VER SB:E~T P.1 --------------- :D~~ .lune 21. 2006 To: Gene Jones Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sauler: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ___ (,tnciutiing cover sneeij] PA.GE(S), INCLUDING TF~ COVRR SHEET. IF YOU DO Nar RECEJVJ:.:ALL l'HE PAGES, .ELEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 314-3758\u0026gt;11 The informationeamaiaedin this \u0026amp;csimile message is attomeyprivilcged andconfideniialinformation intended only for the use of 1hc individual or entity namod aDQvt;. rr ~ .... ~ .. ::- of :hl:: =~~!!~ i~ !!.\".'t the mt.ended recipient, or the employee or agent responsibie w dc;livc1 ;. tut.~ :..t...:.d.::! :eci~i~, yi:m ,we hereby notifled mat any disscmimdicm, dis1nOUJio,n or wpy~ \"t .:.ii wi-\"l\":-::t:~~ is ~rl~~ ~.ahibited. If you have received Ibis commumcation ~error, pu.isK i,;;m;;~h'~ :::.~'\".l.: by te!~h.~n111, Mid Tet\\mi. the original message to us at the aboV.e address via UM: U.S. ~u.\u0026gt;-:al Sc.-~-:~ Th='\"\"\"\"'.!. - - ----- Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 21, 2006 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: JUN 2 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOijlJORING I just received your Motion for a Hearing on Behalf of Joshua Intervenors. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2006, please file a supplement to this motion which will apprise me and your opposing counsel much more fully in the premises. Err, if you are to err at all, on the side of specificity. After receiving supplement, a hearing will be set if it appears one is necessary. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement, also with specificity, within five days after service ofthe supplement. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts .gov a,iessage-Id : \u0026lt;68360l@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; 9lcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download .a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/22/2006 at 9:08 AM CDT and filed on 6/21/2006 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26 / 1998 Document Number : 4020 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4020 , 26052,,MAGIC,,,2005401 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER, Counsel for Joshua Intervenors is to file by 6/28/06 a supplement re [4018] MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorene Joshua. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement within 5 days after service of Joshua Intervenors supplement. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 6/21/06 . (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document 8)riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=10957 94525 [Date=6/22/2006] [FileNumber=683 600:-0] [70b999c859edla527653c3c3e9826a037ela38d6ea03dd7cafbd7b7e86beed14092ae352049b4ce 636dfdf2f9d227045ec417b43f5176ed93cd56b211703d489]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag . gov, angela.dover@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj.com . _Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; - jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING For its Response, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: -RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2006 OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Section I of the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy requires that the parties irrimediately bring to the Court's attention any problems which arise with respect to the Compliance Remedy. 2. The Joshua lntervenors filed a Motion today asking for a hearing to bring unspecificed problems to the attention of the Court. The Joshua Intervenors' Motion contains no factual allegations and does not identify any particular compliance issue. 3. Prior to any hearing, Joshua should be required to allege particular violations of the Compliance Remedy so that LRSD may prepare to present its defense at the hearing. 4. LRSD denies that its counsel told counsel for the Joshua Intervenors that he does not oppose a court hearing. It is LRSD's position that a hearing is appropriate only after the Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 lntervenors have alleged facts which would constitute a violation of the Compliance Remedy. 5. LRSD denies that it has engaged in any violations of the Compliance Remedy. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays thatthe Court require the Joshua lnte_rveners to present specific factual allegations in support of any claim that LRSD has failed to follow the Compliance Remedy before scheduling a hearing on the issue. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 _By: /s/ CHRISTOPHERHELLER#81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I certify that on June 21 , 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th~ Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state,ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RECEiVED JUN 2 3-2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MOtllTORII\u0026amp; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING ___ .Rule 7(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a motion \"shall state with particularity the grounds therefore, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.\" Rule 7 .2 of the local district court rules requires that motions \"shall be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of relevant facts and applicable law.\" The Joshua Intervenors have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l) and Local Rule 7.2. Their Motion for Hearing should therefore be denied: Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: Isl CHRISTOPHER HELLER #81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District F:\\Home\\BRENDAKIFLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MOTION FOR HEARING.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 22, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier(@,ae:. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com. siones(a),jlj :com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller F:\\Homc\\BRENDAK\\FLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MO~N FOR HEARING.wpd United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V . . * * * * * * * * * * * * Pulaski County Board of Education; * Patricia Gee, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock *' School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy; Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges~ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court's I denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. ~Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered. into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit  of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that ifLRSD substantial1y complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3 - Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.l provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the fonn of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a . compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affinned. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment :that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory perfonnance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially comp lied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.l of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2.7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever detennined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement --5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthennore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: (I) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir.2001) (\"[l]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir; 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan, 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965 . . III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Scierice (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -T- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had irpplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2. 7 .1 was to make sure that the programs promised under  2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAs. so ciate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, . it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" Id. at 1077. -9- In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district CO\\.!rt set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04-school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved. in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and Band the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and Bis that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" jg,_ at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev., 807F.2d 1433, 1438; 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. ... If there is any ambiguity in the ... order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlinetfhow LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[m]aintain written records of .. . the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new~ comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7\" to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to\"[ c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003. . . . Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive . mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id.. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific 2. 7 \"academic programs\" ( e:g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis. to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts-A andB of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess eacluJfthe  2.7 programs .... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2. 7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform-\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its . 2002 order, the .district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1.  Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation.. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superflumis requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2.7.1 obligations. -14- LRSD's 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and Bin the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2.7.1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient chall.enge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD' s compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is -likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain . meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy_ (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and thenistrict court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was. contemplated bJ the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- Corr., 246 F.3d 267,281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals:'); Annstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perfonn is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD 's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perfonn the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be fonnally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional infonnation and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom infonnation was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being perfonned on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua ori December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- , K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that - LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had . been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer availafil.e to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshu~ had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD 's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the . line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?)' Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.l program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpaid.\"' l.d:. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirements thatmay seem to imp.ose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be successful. With these observations, the judgment is affinned. - GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affinn the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewaldv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new tenns that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Hollandv. NJ Dep'tofCorr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and shoold not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7. l of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD's quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its . Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2. 7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD' s  curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, notto a permanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goal[]\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District; P laintifli' Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; WayneJoshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, v. * Appeal from the United. States  * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski-County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.;. Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock - I I I I School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public* Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capadty as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; :j\u0026gt; Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER,. Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since l 956~ the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little R~-S-Ch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th .Cir. i'985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Councy Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arno Id's Court, 5 8 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts of LR.SD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Coun1,y. 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, .it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion. of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD' s obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion ofthe2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5 . In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Littfe Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2.d. 988,.1089  '(E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.rprovided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy)  designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Annstrong, 359 E}d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7 .1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. Councy School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five are~ etf a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations, because ith~ substantially complied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7.1 \"). As the district court noted in.2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" ML. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD - to \"implement programs~ policies and/or procedures designed to improve. and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. Tis colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement oflocal authoriiy by .an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( 1) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD 's obligations under section 2. 7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 FJd 1013, 1017 (8th Cir .. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the tenns of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. m. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting tenninofogy employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised P Ian took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- - (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim 'Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan.  The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5, 2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2. 7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring,. Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. ~ Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-Schoo I Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan;. PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy (various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School.TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High SchooL Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance  Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its fmal Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained addttional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LR.SD had evaluated fourteen prograrns.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had iqiplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan; 237 F. Supp. 2d at\" 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were: \"all of the programs ... that LR.SD was implementing in. accprdance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section2.7.1 oftheRevisedPlanrequiredLRSDto assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy,. Comprehensi:ve Partnerships forMathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters- (}IIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- r achievement. If the assessment of a .program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD' s substantial compliance with  2. 7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing.a rigcmms annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id; at I 076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the . terms of the Revised Plan .. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K~3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schbols; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much ;, more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on  certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part of LRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id; at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is. interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\"  1d. at 1077. -9- - . In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" 14:. The district  court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district collit set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the . academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those , programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each. program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c} the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a _grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .. '. . [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluati.om,. any changes or modifications should be made in those prograins ... Jn addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are . detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy .. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B-and the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" id. at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD' s Interim Compliance Report. Cf Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev.; 807F.2d'1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant .... If there is any ambiguity in the . . . order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.'\"). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. Tire Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student' assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m]aintain written records of ... the results of the  annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD' s interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.;' The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan   2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify. orreplace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new; comprehensive. evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. ~ 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a- copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72.}. Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised:'.f'Ian, requested that the 0DM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement.  -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of\"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3.. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented-pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation:   ' ' The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a.National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science.e.vaiuation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. IQ,_ at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic progm,ns\" ( e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, er Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- - D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs. .. _ I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programS'-\"\"'because, on its face, no.thing.in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. M,_at8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated thatLRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In. its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, . plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addres.sed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed,Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSE did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7.1 obligations. -14- . I LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1 : it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the Aftican:-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court foundthat LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the ,plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). '---. At the outset, we.have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its tenns beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any tcquirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th-Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its ternis.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- - Qm:.., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terrns when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's g.ools.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their ownjudgriient as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.'1). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. .e In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as.representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged. in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years~  2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this. Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows:  A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the. preparation of formal program  evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. . The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It inay take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need.for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achie.yement of African-American students .. . . C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key : 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools. throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr; Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identtfy the four key  2. 7 programs that should be . formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels,-:who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- . K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter.; I wiU schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions. quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that.LRSD had not substantially complied with the tenns of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are tenned its ''Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and.Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the  Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to. demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's . Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD' s compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle. it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its d1sagreement_ with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Withwt recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSI? submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remed~ we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof: all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court   in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- - are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. NeverJieless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the _ line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and.the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple_ language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do th~t it is unwilling to: do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying -with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at tliis time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements-of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the . moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation th~ substantial compliance .means just that, not mathematical precision'. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Rerised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Courtformulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.1. program assessment/ evaluation process that will allow it to detennine the effectiveness-of each of the key  2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. , D. Ct Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD 's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading; math, and. science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a de,bt unpaid.\"' ill at 68. We adtfto these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that -which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - - - - ------ - - ------------~ - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered. into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirememsi:hat may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one fonn or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be. successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodiedin the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d  ~ J at 1300 (quotmgSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, !.,..concurring)). Although we defer in large measureto the district court's interpretation-or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by   imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F .3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous tenns of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ Dep't of Corr., 246 F: .3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and-should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the tenns agreed to by the parties in section 2. 7; 1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those tenns. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.T' for a year and a half and ''to use. all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing Ea) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction irrthe 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"asses~ment\" and a more forma~ research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are.   untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon:assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in_subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Toe district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross ( or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those  programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the. 2002, Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in . assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum ami instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court): The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- - -- - - --- - ---- ------------~ - However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply.embedded\" requirement, viewed in ligfit of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD' s compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At thispoint, vacatingthe 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD' s efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 R.emedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at9-1 0; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- 1 . be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out.of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy.would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without OlSIUpting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy . . Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- _,u,,.ai  .::t:J~ 4 ' ,j' U\"'rl JVHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P. 2/ 10 .~ 4:82-\u0026lt;::V-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN nm UNITBD STATF.s DJSTlUCT COURT EASTRi.~DlS'f\u0026amp;AICT OP. APJ\"-,.ANSAS ~'E.-:.\"T\u0026amp;.i.~ DIVISION LttrI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DJSTRICI' NO. 1. ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL KATHFJUNE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS BF..ffllNSE IQ CQJJBT PIBEC'JlYi OF JUNE 21, 20Q6 The Com:t directed. Joshua to submit a statement in support of it$ tequest for a bearing by u,day. JO\u0026amp;hna submits the attached Affidavit of Ms. Joy Spnll\u0026amp;C% in support of its motion and request for a hearm,. - Respectfully submittoo, /s/Jobn W. W!!ke{ Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 221.ocustA\"VCDUC JOHN W. WAL~ PA I exingtan, MA 02421 1723 Broadway (781) 86?-.19SS Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 (501) ~74-~75\u0026amp; (SO!) 374-4187 (Fu) JUI'!, c:ts. c:= 4; ,:j4t-'M JVHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P. 3/10 case 4;82-CV-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06128/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tbat OD this_ day of ______ 2006, I electronically filed tbe fmegoing with the Clcn of Court using the CMIECF SystcDi, which shall send notification to all counsel associated with this case and who .are registered with the system and by othet means to the unn,gistered pc2'SODS listed below. Clayr.on R. Blackstock Mitd2ell, BJacbtoct. Baines. Wapitt, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PU.C 1010 West Thud Street Post Office Box 1S10 Little Rock, All 72203-1S10 Noanm J. Chachkin NAACP ~iol Dd~se \u0026amp; ~..:.0-..al Fund, h:c. 99 Hudson Sir~ ft  .  ,l'AA, .)Wfe LOUU New York. 1,n 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attomey 0eoen1~s Office ~-Pricn Tower Building 323 Center Street Suitc200 Little Rock. .AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thomp500 \u0026amp; Lle~llyn, P.A. 412 Sooth Eiglttffl!th Stmet P~t Qffi~ Box 818 IN !HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EAST~ Ul:SlRICI OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ll'!'l'.LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LOP.ENE JOSHU--6.., ET .AL KATdERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO.04:82c'V00869WRWIJTR AFFIDA VII Ql lQY SPRINGER ' ,-. Comes now me afrumt, Joy Spri.n. ger~w ho states under oath: N0.152 P.4/10 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANiS INTERVENORS 1. My name i.s Joy Springer and I have been assisn,:d by counsel for the Joshua Intervenoxs to monitor the Little Roek School District's compliance with the court's order of June 30, 2004 (later referred to as the Compliance Remedy). .?... T-h -~:-.1w. . n.r evinu.d.v, !!ubm.itted affidavits herein indicatin2- that l have a two lnchelors ' . degrees, one in ~ Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Mamrs degree in Education Administration from UALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years. 3. r have been.regularly monitoring program evaluati cornpliance before and especially s-.nce the court's order of June 30) 2004. My .monitoring has involved the following activiues: l .JUl~  .::.t:1.\u0026lt;::.~b 4 ' d::\u0026gt;t-'1'1 JOHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.5/ 10 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program evaiuati.ons; b) conveISations with PRE staff, the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE' s quarterly reports regar~ the compliance remedy; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I have rcgulatly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM, what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, fo\u0026lt;..-used and deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my wol'k. I have had 311 occasion to review district publi~ons which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is dcmons1rafed. for cxm:npl~, by the district's professional d.eveloP\"\"-t c .. lendar fur the y~rs 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006? approximately three weeks lx,fore the end of the second school year addressed in the ccrmplienc~ remedy f 11nd ::.l'!l-,sr two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], ~en for tbose 2 JUN.28.2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P.6/ 10 dates. it de~ net m-?.f-l\"n. the nnmher of -S'tm wbo received professional developmem with ?CSpect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district' .s cmricu1um. This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in. the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court upected (Page 62, Fcotnote39 oft~ C.ompMnee Remedy) to be apart of the comprehensive assessment process will not be uudertami until tbe fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1. 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questioanaire postpOned) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse: to eith_\"'!' supplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comp1~\\ei:isivt asse5:,,1ue:ut prveess in.to the in..'\"tr.z....\"tion :programs. LP.SD Complinnc--\" Report March 1, 2006 at 3. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE' s use. {Interview with Dr. De.Jamette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's - req,Ji.-rem.em: that the difflict have a PRE department in the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program msessment/evaluation process (Ptige 68, of tho Compliance Remedy). 3. Various factors suggest that the vision of the cU1Tent administration of the LRSD de~ the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE ~ed m~Jy ti) the Suy_,erintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would reali.u the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court.. Jn March 2005, Dr. to sui,ervise PRE. Theresfter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities u,ron PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major foCU!. These responsibilities :included the pteparation school improvement plans for a. lqe 3 JUN.G~-2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.152 P.7/10 nmn~er of schools as wen at- developing and cmying out surveys required as part of the school i.wptovemem effort. I un.de::r.:m-:f \"PP.E's m~j~r fucu~ to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying out of required assessments and evaln.a.ti.ons, and the emberlding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD s cmriculum and instruction program. 9. Int.he two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation. Dr .. Olivine Robar.s has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LR.SD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Brooks hM made with respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. A.!?.at..hereY\"\"'\"le of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the 2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation COllSisted. for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. - ~ the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active participation by other ,Hqn,,;ct st!tf who h~ the respo~~;hiJity of actually implementing the programs being ~aluated. 11. A third example of PRE's diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The 1,'esting Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham_ left the district l)rior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contto....ct 1H\"';\";cJu.d from ! 1 month!i: tc:, 10 months as a result of the district's ''reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testina Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. Arthur Olds).[Compllimce Report March 1, 2006] He resigned after approximately 3 months on thcjob.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position has not been nllet:f. Tt is my understanding that one of PREs statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4. .Jun  .:.cs. \u0026lt;::.~IOo 4 ; .:!bl\"rl J VHN W WRLKER P A N0.152 P.8/ 10 ~...c:l =gr.e1 tru: .orlrlP.tl ~onsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for jub vacancies, the Te.,~ COO?dinator positinn has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at t,\"\" Tn~..t ctfonal ~~ouree Cent.er (IRC) of the LRSD. The puxposc of the meetini was for PRE staff to update Joahua and the ODM regarding the mtm~ nfthe Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the neeessary test data for the Step 2 evalu:rtiom due on October ! , 2006. PRE Director, Or. DeJamette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data wo!!ld be SY~.h thst m extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJamettc stated that she would provide the necessary information to the lSD counsel for the fi1ina of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1, 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process - into its cumculum and ins1ruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in fonnulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2. 7 .1. Based upon this commumcation and inf0tlll8tion. comaincd in paragraphs 5.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PR P. :miff members and the ODM representative. Ocnc Jones, that because the district was not in compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its cumculum and instruction programs . as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has ~ommunicated similar reservations to the LRSD' s PRE staff JUt'i.C:l:S.\u0026lt;:::~ 4'::lbl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.9/ 10 14. Foll~ inf'ormini l)r. ne.Jamette, .PRE Dl!ector, that Joshua would invoke the and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met with Mr. Jones thereafter. It is noteWOrthy that they did not io.lu.de Pll Oireetm- Oe.Ta.mette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly 8$k.ed that Joshua be fully involved in these discussions. the district chose t~ involve only ODM 15. I am of the view that the LRSD h3s continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30. 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example. it appears to me that Dr. DcJamettc is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She bas indic31'Cd as much during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD has no definitive plan for the USe of \"assessments'' being geuer.itcd by the Compass Leaming programs. Furdlermore, the school district's adxninistration bas not acted in keeping - Joshua and the court informed through timely reports., of tbe necessity for more time. and for modification of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluatiOrtS which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's fmlurc to provide the n~my data. Afflant saith nothing further; 6 JUl'i. a:,,~ 4; ~bl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A STATE OF AR.KANSAS) COUNTY OF ILYt1vJt.t \\ 7 N0.152 P.10/10 ..,...,,,.c.o.c.t:iO\u0026lt;Jo \u0026lt;-+,::1\u0026lt;-+r-11 JVMl'i W WHLKt.1-\u0026lt; t-' A N0.152 P.1/ 10 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 17:15 .Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (SOJ) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMJSSIO]S COVER SHEET Dat~: June 28 ,2006 To: GeneJones Fa.x: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sende: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ( (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S}, INCLUDING THIS COVF;R SHEEI'. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE.A.LL THE PA.GES, PLEA.SE CALL ''\u0026lt;(S01) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" Theinfonnationcourainedinthisfac:similemessageisattorneyprivilegcd.andconfidemialinfonnationintended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Iftbe r    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1772","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Education--Evaluation","Transportation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1772"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["51 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Joshua's reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education; District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, four Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    MAGNET REVIEIAI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNCSION P. 002/008 LITI1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW .ITR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERlNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL . DEfEND.ANT INTER VENO RS INTERVENOR$ .JOSHUA S SURREPLY TO LRSD S REPLY TO .JOSHUA S RESPONSE TO COURT s ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 200s __ _,.Joshua requests to engage in discovery in anticipation of further proceedings including a possible hearing. Joshua. respectfully responds to the LRSD s reply to the Joshua Intervenors Response to the Court s Order ofNovember 8, 200S: 1 . The special education cost increases are not adequately c,cplained. Careful review of the reply indicates thnt the District did not identify salazyincreases nor employees U\u0026gt; be replaced who arc more senior and better educated. Moreover, of the $114,676.00 increasc'only $S000.00 is explained. The explanation otherwise has to be that each current employee will be give a $5000.00 salary increase. Joshua simply docs not understand this and it makes no sense. Furthermore, teachers and employees elsewhere in the district are not being given similar consideration as that which appears to be proposed. The consequence of disparate treatment would be to favor magnet school srudents and to disfavor regular school students of whom most in the special education curriculum arc African American. MAGNET REVIEW P.003/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 . Page 2 of 3 2. During public board meetings Board member Katherine Mitchell complained that students in a number of the regular schools did not have textbooks as of October, 2005. She indicated that the district did not have textbooks purchases for students as a priority. The district does not commit the $239,855.00 for textbooks. It simply says that the increase is related to its adoption of new textbooks in certain subjects. Joshua s concern is that LRSD s material and supply costs favor the students in the magnet schools to the possibl~ comparative detriment of the students in the regular schools, especially those who ore underachieving. 3. The district explains the $258,640.00 indirect costs increase as being for  adminis~ve fees, the percentage rate of which was changed during 2004-2005. A raise of that amount would necessarily mean that the budget is being increased by more than $1. 75 million dollars, i.e., the fee base is more than SI. 75 million dollars. Joshua attaches the MRC minutes of September 20, 2005 which contain Mr. Mark Millhollen s explanation of the budget request. (Joshua Exhibit 1, page 3) In it, Mr. Millhollen indicates that the proposed budget increase is $900,000.00 half of which is for salary increases and the other part is for textbooks. Two things about this: 1) a fee base of 15% would increase the administrative costs amount by $135,000 rather than $258,000; and 2) it materially differs from the rationale submitted bytbe district to the court for the increases. 4. Joshua disputes that the closure of Mitchell and Rightsc:1.1 are unrelated to tbe MRC s proposed budgetS. Those two schools had low enrollments and out dated physical ~1rUcturcs for many years but they were still maintained for use during the student assignment plan. The students in those schools are entitled to equal education and services wherever they were assigned. An assessment of the budget, we believe, will demonstrate that the students in the closed schools have been adversely affected bythcir reassignments while the students in the ' . MAGNET REVIEW P. 004/008 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Flle.d 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 3 magnet schools have had their education advantages and services enhanced. The district argues that it spends less to operate the stipulation magnets due to contributions from the State and the two other school districts. This misses the point. The question is whether the budget increases are adequately justified irrespective of who is paying the costs. We submit that the district may not advantage the magnet schools more ~y than the regular schools simply because the State, NLRSD and PCS SD are supplemental sources of funding. WHEREFORE. Joshua requC?Sts that the court afford Joshua the opportunity to explore the matter further by way of discovery as authorized by the federal rules; chat after such discovery, Joshua reports to the court its concerns and the evidentiarybasis therefor; and that the court at that time determine whether further proceedings arc necessazy. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W, Walker _____________ ___,John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-37S8 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jobnwalkeratty@nol.cQID CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed -with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this Sth day of January, 2005 whae copies are fur.warded to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker I I ' MAGNET REVIEW MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 20, 2005 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101. North Little Rock, Arkansas, on Tuesday. Scpcember 20, 2005. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Marvin Jeter, PCSSD Absent: Guests: Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intc:rvencrs Danny Reed, NLRSD Gene Jones, Associate Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mark Milhollen, ChiefFmancial Officer - LRSD Jean Ring, Director ofFmance and Accounting - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor-Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie .M'itchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of June 29, 2005. Dr. Mitchell asked if there were any corrections or deletions to be made. Marcia Harding made a motion to accept the rmnutes as presented, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's repolt. She called the Committee's attention to items m correspondence. The first item was a letter to the Court, notifying the Court that the interdistrict magnet schools budget would not be submined by the June 30111 self.:imposed deadline but that. hopefully, the budget process would be completed within the month ofJuly. Copies of the Ietterweregiveri to MR.C members, but no action was required by the MRC.  P.005/008 MAGNET REVIEW  duals in all three school districts to thank them for . ~:i;,w -'~:)~i: _29, 200~ meeting. Copies oftbememoranduin ,,_;.,-,. for their infonnation . . .: ~~~; ... .:~ _ _. \"\"''\" tc, all three school districts' Student Registration Offices were  ,;: . ,, . . This memprandwn suggested dates for the annua! \"swap . . _ , , iPagnet seats a.s possible before the beginning of the new school  ~ ,,, required b the MRC. ljf.\"' y ~~-~~~~t: . . . .. .. ,.,, :- -~-  was sent to John W. Walker, Attorney at Law. in response to a letter ~~    ::: ...  w..a.a:s office requesting copies of all information from the MR.C Office prior t .  ~ MRC meeting. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was Ttq\\1\\fed' t\u0026gt;jtnc\\Vfit\\:.. A thank-you memorandum was sent to participants at the aruiual \"swap meet\" which was held in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Mann Magnet bas been given the opportunity to decorate the tree for the annual CART! Festival of Trees via a memorandum from Ms. Creer. Copies were given to MRC members for their perusal. A letter was sent to the Court to provide information that the imerdistrict magnet schools budget still was not fioaliud. due to teacher contract negotiatiom still in progress. Copies of the letter were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC.  - Copie., of a letter to Lisa Meyer, Director of Mall Marketing. McCain Mall, were given to MRC members. This leaer informed Ms. Meyer that the MRC is happy to be workmg with her again this year to host the Magnet Fair on Jamwy 21, 2006.   A memorandum was sent to magnet school principals providing reauitrnent information for the 2005-06 school year, and of the activities that are being planned. Copies were  given to MRC members, but no action was required on the pan of the MRC. Congramlations memorandums were sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal at Carver . Magnet, and Dr. Cheryl Carson. Principal at Booker Magnet, for hosting successful Open . Houses. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of S3, 181. 70 wc:re presented for payment. Oliver Dillirigbam made a . motion to pay the bills, and Marcia Harding seconded the motio.a. The: motion carried unanimously to pay the: bills. -2- P. 006/008 ' MAGNEr REVIEW There were no newspaper articles since the previous Magnet Review Committee meeting that are specifically related to magnet schools. With regard to recruitment, Ms. Creer has bad the opportunity to go to Open Houses. She did go to Booker, Carver, Henderson, and J. A Fair. All of them had a great turnout. Oliver Dillingham said he attended Mann's Open House as a parent, and said it was very nice and had Vt!fr'J good participation. There are no vaca.ocies or new hires at this ti.me in the Little Rocle School District Stipulation magnet schools. Mark Milhollen came before the Magnet Review Committee to present information with regard to the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, and the proposed budget for the Stipulation magnet schools for the 2005-06 school year. Mr, Milhoilcn started his presentation with the information that the final budget for the 2004-0S school year was based on the third quarter ADM of3,S62.90. Actual expenditures included giving a 10% raise. a step incrc:asc in 2004-05, and a raise in insurance contnbutions to $260.00 per month. All this was contained in the 2004-05 school year and still came within the budget. The fin.al budget figure placed the per pupil ex:peuditw-e at $7,235.00, which was $2.00 Jess per pupil than originally budgetecL The 2005-06 budget was established with the $5,400 figure for the funding formula. An agreement was reached for a % raise to the base for all employees and a step increase for all employees. The fringe package was also increased by $3.00, going from $260.0.0 to $263.00. There is also a re.open clause in the bargaining. If the results of the hearing from the Lakeview case are good. the district will r~pen the negotiations and tallc about potential ma-eases for the teachers. Wrth regard to FTE' s, Mr. Milhollen reported that a teaching position was lost at Gibbs Magnet, a choral position was added at Parlcview, and a  Special Education teacher was also added at Parkview. Mr. Milhollen reported that the proposed budget canies an increase ofS900,000 for 2005-06. One-half of that amount is due to the salary increase. Another part of the increase is for textbooks - this is adoption year. . Marcia Harding then made a motion to accept the Stipulation magnet school budget for the 2004-0S schooJ year, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion curried unanimoualy. -3- P.007/008 MAGNt l REVIEW Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Milhollen for coming before tbe MRC and presenting the budget report. Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, came before the Magnet Review Committee to report on the status of the M-to-M Policies and Procedures. He-informed the MRC that a controversy arose last August regarding Majority-to-Minority Transfers. He then met with the parties (Joshua Intervenor.s included) to iron OUt the problems. There is a divergent interest among the- districts, according to Mr. Smith. One district is still in Court regarding student assignment issues - the other two are released from Court. Mr. Smith asked the parties if they wished to continue the M-to-M transfers, and the desire is to do so. The Office ofDesegregatioa Monitoring has now deve!oped an agreement in draft form that, hopefully, all parties will sign. Mr. Smith provided copies to l\\illC members. MT. Smith noted that this really affects the lives of children. Transportation issues are what we are dealing with. There is a reluctance to provide transportation to some M-toM students. Ms. Harding thanked Mr. Smith for his report to the MR.C. She noted that it was a very good report. Ms. Creer and Dr. Mitchell reported that Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Magnet ConsuJtant. has been visiting in Little Rock. She necd:i a lot of historical .information about the magnet schoob, and Mark Milhoilen is putting together the information for her. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Creer also met with Dr. Dreyfus, and she reported to them on the teacher evaluation programs. Dr. Dreyfus will be bade in town again soon, and Ms. Creer and Dr. :M:itchell will keep the MRC updated on the progress. Ms. Creer reminded the MRC that it is time to select our MR.C Chairperson and ViceChair for the 2005-06 year. Marcia Harding made a motion to continue with Dr. Sadie Mitchell as Chairperson, and Danny Recd as Vice-Chair. Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. ' Ms. Creer informed the MR.C that Parkview would like to host the next Magnet Review Committee meeting. It was agreed by consensus to schedule it for Wednesday,  October 12, 2005. When no further business was brought before the MR.C, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting. and Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. P.008/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED \u0026amp;n~ ,~--;,o~- omceOF DESEGREGATIONYONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Court's Order of December 17, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR\" ICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: rnark.ha2:erneier@ag .state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Pag. e 1 of 45 ~ _/ . (D -(J,u,, . { 1 ( 1,,0 RECEIVED OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Year or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13, 2006 Rece,veo JAN 17 2006 James S. Catterall DESEGREGjWoiE:bNtrORJNG Professor UCLA Gradu_ate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 RECEIVED ~ t -- . . - - -- 11 / !J~i- - do~ omceoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little, Rock, Arkansas Family l\"nterviews Year-round - vs - 9-month Schools UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED JAN 3 O 2006 DFFICEDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCSSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act (Doc. No. 3911). The motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECf f,VED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG' Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~\"11-o.R Scotts~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr: J anna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle *' Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RECialVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl\"\\JSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cottSm1th REC::fVED FEB - 2 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFleE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAl~GAil0NM ONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) forthe current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June-. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education February 28, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 . OFFICE.OF DESEGREGATION'MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane.Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry.Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle or: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy La\".\"son, Bentonville *Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ( . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2006. Respectfully Submitted, i~fk Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr: M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ . ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation P~ n and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 wn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 31 , 2006 SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED APR -.l 2006 CEOF N MONITORING Sl'ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia et Vice Chair: Diane.Tatum-,.Pine Bluff Members:- Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle: .. Dr. CalvirrKing, Marianna .. Randy Lawson; Bentonville. .. Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. MaryJanl!!Rebick, UttlecRi\u0026gt;ck. .. Dr. NaccamarrWilllams, Springdale A,r Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR -3 2006  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-800-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education. #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SrunuelJones,m Mitchell, Williruns, Selig; Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 _Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~1tk Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINEW. KNIGHT, ETAL INTERVENOR$ ADES PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . \" (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June . .. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date ... . . Last day of each month, August - June. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .Educatii'n '--5 Gene s.ei-~ Arkansas Dep , '1 '  n SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071. {501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us ED 6 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr: JeannaWestmoreland; Arkadelphia  Vice.Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine-Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Shelby Hillman, carlisle ., Dr. calvin King, Mariann ., Randy Lawsorr,.Bentonville .. Dr: Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock:.   Dr: NaccamanWilliams, Springdale Arr Equal Opportunity employer   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 '1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 27, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. Samuel Jones, ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;~~ttkir- Scott Smith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ... APR 2 8- 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE Of _ DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL Irr compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This. document-describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA  (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average- daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date. Last day of- each month, August--June. 05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 US DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRJCT OF ARKANSAS omcE OF THE CLERK 600 WEST CAfflOL A VENUE SUITE402 Ll'ITJ...E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72.201-3325 PAGE 01 ,JAMF..S W. McCORMACK CLD.K ($01)604-5351 F AX(~1)604-S32S TO: 'FROM: DATE: RE: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ATTN: PoJJy) Tammy Downs, Oeputy Clerk May 11, 2006 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County School Distriqt, et al. Case No.: 4:82-cv-00866  I Attached is a copy of the recent text entry order entered by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. The original will follow by mail. Thank you.  THJS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF_ PAGES INCLUJDlNG THIS COVER PAGE.  05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 MJ.ME- Version:l.O f~om:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov T.o:arecl_ecf@ared . u!.courts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;64777l@ared.useourts.gov\u0026gt; Bee: US DISTRICT COURT Subject:~ctivity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pu~.iski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Withdraw\" Content-Type: t~xt/plainNOTE TO PUBLIC ~CC?.SS USERS*** You may view the; filed documents once wit hout ch~ r.ge . To avoid later charges, download a copy of each docUltlent during this first vi,ewing.U.S. District Court Eastern Distr.ict of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5/2/2006 at 11:54 AM CDT and file~ on 5/2/2006 Case Name: Little ~OCK School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Ca.se Number: 4: 82-cv-866 http://ecf.at'ed. uscourts. gov/cgi.-bin/DktRpt .pl. ?26052 WAAN~NG: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4012 Copy the URL adc:l:r:ess from the line below into the l ocation bar o f. your Neb : browser to view 1:he document: 401.2 Docket Text: PAGE 02 (This is a TeXT ENTRY ONLY. T.here is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER gnnting (4011] LRSO's Motion to Wj_thdraw Objections to ODM Budget. Signed by Judge William R. Wil~on Jr. on 05/02/06. (dmm, ) The followj_ng docurnQnt(sl a~e associated with this transaction: 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailQd to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock(!mbbw5 .. com Ma~k Terry Burnette mburn~tte@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltQl.net Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeierear.kansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller he.Uer@fQc.net, brendak@fec.net; tll\\iller@fec.nc.\\t. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephan w. ~Tones sjone$@jlj.com, lcate.jones@jlj.com; l :i.nda,calloway@jlj.coni Phili? E. Kaplan pkaplan~kbrnlaw.net, nmoler@~bmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yaboo.com John W. Walker johnwe.lkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmQil.com 4:82-cv-866 Notic-: will be d~livered by other mQans to: No.t'man J. Chachkin NAACe Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY. 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger ~rkan$aa Attorney General\"s Office Ca~lett- Prten rower Building 323 Center StrcQt St)i.te 200 Little Roe~, AR 72201-2610 , 105/11/2006 13: 48  ' 5016045321 Jame~ M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Stret Post Office Box 918 Fo~t Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 Wast Capitol Suite 1895 Little Roek, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Tho~p5on \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eigh~eenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, 1\\R 72902-0818 US DISTRICT COURT PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4014 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. A May 2, 2005 Order reads: ORDER On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately .1 - On May 9, 2005, LRSD filed objections to the proposed budget.2 However, on May 1, 2006, LRSD filed a Motion to Withdraw its objections to the ODM budget.3 The motion was granted the next day.4 Because there are no longer objections to the proposed ODM budget, it is approved and adopted as presented. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2006. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 3914. 2Doc. No. 3917: 3Doc. No. 4011. 4Doc. No. 4012: LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04, % of 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004-05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) ofODM's unspent budget for the previous year: 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD'!\u0026gt; share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NL RS D's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 2003-04 Actual .................................................. 61,042.00 127,415.00 520.00 126,895.00 f'\\ 2004-05'0 2004-05 2005;,()lf _, BtlDGET Estimated BUDGE.T . 200,000.00 200,000.00 \\ . 1~,583.00 134,583.00 118,262.00 4,282.00 4,282.00 1,724.00 130,301 .00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES 2003-04 2003-04 ~ .'2004:.c,5,/1~ 2004-05 ,, 2005-0,\u0026amp;f\"1~1 BUDGET Actual : i t,,BUDGErJ; j Estimated .BUD.GEE:,t ~ .. ,:: ., Communications 8,000.00 7,813.33 J!it):9f1_90:0Q~ 9,006.00 ~ r 61000lOdri Dues ahd Fees 735.00 930.00 ',.' 'J\u0026gt;, ' 265:00t,1 265.00 ... ;, ., . .. , r-, ~ '.', \" .. ' j, '.\\l 2:Zo,,0.0;_. ft'}': ,.ii:='.l'o' ;a00;.~ \\ ,' \u0026lt; ,, ,, Equipment 500.00 2,590.99 f ; --~t~t,,;,:r; : . -~ 0.00 f o;oor Food Services 0.00 :--,,, ,.A~ ( O:oo1 ~- ,,, . ', ,.'\u0026lt;.I 0.00 ., 0.00 1, O'.0Q,. Management Services ,. :t  '  ' ' f 5,000.00 0.00 ~ ' ,r.~: o:oo:. 0.00 } O.OOx !I ,ct} J .    ~ Periodicals 121 .00 135.00 .,la(:\",.,:,, . 135.00. 135.00 I 0:0,Q'i.i Printing \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 5,033.07 ~ir I. 5;500,00); 5,245.00 i 5,250.oci ' ' ' . ''';; Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,717.50 ' .,,,;t, 7!00.0Q';,\u0026gt;, 1,554.00 t ,700,00,, Rent 48,860.00 48,869.80 J~,; ' so!s9,1:oo;; 50,691.00 1, 52,564;00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 434.95 If ' 400.0\u0026lt;r ~, -1;' -'4QQ.OO.\\ 252.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 ,\u0026gt;;t!\\'f'Y((\"._'j,~M.  ~ l   .\"+.o:oa~ 0.00 r,. (Yf o~oo! Salaries 405,419.00 405,251.10 f. ,, .3 ' 32.,, 04'2.,. 0'Q\\ ; 332,042.00 t ' ' ~, . ,;,  300,603;00;t Benefits 80,018.00 78,447.40 t ~i:7,~(3'-fr-OO' 75,311 .00 I .742;322.0(( Staff Development 0.00 0.00 F'' .. 0.00,.; 0.00 }. o.oBJ (,.,;.' r, 'p ' Supplies 6,000.00 5,403.11 ~  4',000:0.0.l: 4,000.00 3,500;00J, ,. 1~075:00~ 11 Travel 2,459.00 2,013.54! 1~525',ooH ; 1,066.00 ,, ... ,s1t.om I' Insurance 712.00 572.00 - 572.00 1, 600.00t  ~ =-ig.~:-. .... ~~~-.r ,:, ,'\"' ' 1:,Jotat,Scpe.n difuresj. , \"; II!,@  ' '  :,of.,:. ' ' 1Jif 565';\"~2~oof Y,i,.i;, ' -\";  . i ,if; 559,~;J.1:19'f 7: 480,79;1:0ro- . 480,.,139:00: ~ 446:739.00;\"- Difference (Income minus Expenditures 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 3,596.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2003-04 Budget 8,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually oras a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04- Budget' 5,000.00 2003-04-Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page.4 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003--04 Budget 121.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003--04 Budget 1,700.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003--04 Budget 48,860.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691.00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2003--04 Budget 400.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31 ,173 Act 11 of 1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive paymentfor annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 28th year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are' over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 80,018.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 78,447.40 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 75,311 .00 B e1 o w 1s a b re akd own b, yeat egoryof eac h emp ovee ' s 2004 -05 b U dl g ete d frin1 ge b ene fit s: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21 .48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 fiir~''~---,,1: \"?t!J.\"J''''_4:'. ~- il({~.(\"'l\"!-ls' ~~r~'t ::1\u0026lt;z;4,'3,:,7 ,.8 ~11f 1~11 893:s.i ti . .. .,. ' ,. r , '': i rozsfoa~ 1f; I,, ,2~s tf)~~-n ~ ' ~1\"' ~ ;pi~S'i:lj' Tobi ~-...., fl':~~ :ffe)J~ ~~-,- ,,,.j: . ,., \" !i,\u0026gt; if'_ 12;a:m::oo.~- ( 12.t:~ ;:_258,76ll f1l, '-75}3~1~1:,fJ Page6 - - , ., ', ' \\\". - Below is a breakdown b ee's 2005-06 bud benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital . Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits. Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3,120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 'T,otal' Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or-items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05' Estimated Expenditures- 4,000.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one-of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance. coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures. 572.00- 2005~06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase irrthe annual premium: 2004-05 estimated expenditures 572.00 P-age:7 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .EducatiWn May 25, 2006 Gene Arkansas SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  LittJe Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 STATE.BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair.- Dr.; Jeanna.Wesbnoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice-Chair: Diane\u0026gt;Tatum,,Pine Bluff Members:: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle. .. Dr. Calvin-King; Marianna: ., Randy lawson; Bentonville~ .. Dr. \u0026amp;'en-Mays; Clinton- .. MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock; .. Dr. Naccaman-Williams; Springdale. ArrEqua/ Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 .  omcEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2006. \\ Respectfully Submitted, Je~,i/b Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel _ Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY ,2 6 2006  . . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL . . OFFiCE OF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI CpUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,_ ET AL DEFENDANTS  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progres~ the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2: Actual as of May 31 , 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Lastday of each month, August-June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1771","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE, LRSD's reply to Joshua's response to Court's order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1771"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["41 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) preliminary evaluation report for SMART/THRIVE    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3989) to file and serve Dr. Catterall' s preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education. The motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD must filed the preliminary evaluation on Year-Round Education by 5 p.m., Friday, January 13, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 ~~EIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICTOF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFACEOF DBEBREBATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Compass Learning in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3992 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 20, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.ha2:emeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ilj.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller 2 --------- ---------------' ' -,. CREP Cttntu for Reseord, in EducotionolPolicy  I , n.i i 0,J! 1 '; ,-: i, eh!:1.:.-:f:;,,t1' .. ,)  1:: ., ~ ~-::v ~ ),-:~4~ '_ihle ~c:r.:~; ::cri--o: t:1;5ff,c t ~ RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING   ~ Con1pc1)'.:\u0026gt;Learning  DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005R te ~VED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Case No. 4:82CV866WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, JAN 3 2006 OFflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY TO JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its reply to Joshua's response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, states: The proposed Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") budget currently before the Court for approval, is the culmination of a months long collaboration of each of the MRC 's members, including the Joshua Intervenors, which began in February 2005. On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the MRC, by a unanimous vote of 5-0, approved the final budget for the 2004-2005 school year as well as the proposed budget for 2005-2006. The Joshua Intervenors' representative was absent for the vote. The MRC requested the Court's approval of the final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and the proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year on or about September 22, 2005. On November 14, 2005, Joshua filed objections to the proposed budget for the MRC for the 2005- 2006 school year, seeking explanations for the increases in three areas in the proposed budg~t for 2005-2006 as compared to the interdistrict magnet school's actual expenditures for the 2004- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 4 - 2005 school year. The LRSD will respond to each of Joshua's objections in the order listed in their November 14, 2005, filing to the Court: 1. The $114,676.00 increase in special education costs from actual 2004-2005 expenses as compared to and 2005-2006 is explained by the following: (a) a half-time teaching position is recommended to increase to a full-time position at Parkview High School at a projected increase of approximately $17,000.00; (b) the LRSD salary scale is designed to reward educational advancement. Due to the efforts of certain employees, a projected increase of approximately $16,000.00 in salaries will occur during the 2005-2006 school year; (c) the MRC proposed line item budget for special education expenses also includes approximately $76,000.00, to replace employees who departed the LRSD with more senior and better educated - employees; (d) finally, of the $114,676.00 proposed increase for special education costs, $5,000.00 is proposed for incremental salary increases for current employees remaining with the LRSD, thus earning an additional year of experience. 2. The $239,855.00 increase in material and supply costs, is directly related to the LRSD' s adoption of new reading, language arts, English and journalism textbooks throughout the District, for all LRSD schools including the six stipulation magnets schools. While an additional $281,792.00 was added to the proposed MRC budget for 2005-2006 for the purchase of new textbooks for students, classroom material and supplies decreased by $41,937.00, creating the net increase of $239,855.00. Likewise, LRSD' s operating budget incurred the same cost increase for textbook adoptions and its budget includes an additional $1 ,588,852.00 while other material and supply - costs decreased by $234,617.00. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 3 of 4 3. The $258,640 increase in indirect costs relates to the administrative fee that the LRSD is authorized to charge to the magnet budget for administration of the magnet schools as outlined in the March1989 Pulaski County School desegregation case settlement agreement. The administration fee is determined using the restricted program indirect cost rate calculated periodically by the Arkansas Department of Education. Prior to June 29, 2005, the LRSD Statecalculated restricted program rate was 7.08%. On June 29, 2005, the State released new calculations for use in the 2004-2005 school year and future years changing the rate to 8.25%. Although, the State increased the rate to 8.25%, the $2,194,000.00 in the 2005-2006 proposed budget for indirect costs represents a revised rate of approximately 8.23%. 4. The closures of the Mitchell and Rightsell facilities are unrelated to the MRC' s proposed budget. The two schools were closed as a result of low enrollment and outdated - physical structures, making their continued use operationally and fiscally inefficient. The proposed MRC budget will not reduce the provision of services and educational programs to LRSD students in non-magnet or majority black schools. Moreover, because the State, PCSSD and NLRSD contribute financially to the operation of the six stipulation magnet schools, Joshua's argument that the proposed MRC budget tends to disfavor students in majority black schools is incorrect. LRSD spends less to operate its stipulation magnet schools due to the contributions from the State and the two other school districts. WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, Little Rock School District requests that the proposed MRC budget be approved as submitted. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3995 Filed 1212212005 Page 4 of 4 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. ha!!emeier@ag.s tate.ar.us sjones@mwsQ:w.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Khayyam M. Eddings Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4SfATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.stnte.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education December 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203,.1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer -- - - - - --- - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for December 2005. Respectfully Submitted, S~li~ 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 22, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2005 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005R ~e ~i\\tE D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 3 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COlJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for Reading Recovery in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3994 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 22, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification- of such filing to the following: mark.hae-emeier@ag .state. ar. us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@j1j .com iohnwalkerattv@ao1.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher-Heller 2 CREP Center for Research in d11cational Policy Center tor Researd1 in Edumtiorml P,~i,;y Thr, UniV\u0026lt;-\u0026gt;..rsily of V,emphis 325 Browning H,~! Memp-his. Tennessee 38152 Toil Free 1-B6o-37C-G14i REt;l:IVED JAN 5 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Evaluation of Reading Recovery In the Little Rock School District 2005 Aggregate Report DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report for SMART / THRIVE in accordance with the Court's Order of November 29, 2005 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-1 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 27, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 1 of 69 CREP Ctnttr for RtJtarclt in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University oi f/emphis 325 Br011ming Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 - Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1760","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Project management","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1760"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["17 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to the show cause hearing of Monday, November 7, 2005; District Court, Joshua's witness summaries; District Court, response to Court's October 31, 2005, order - Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, Joshua's response to the court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the court's order of November 7, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV - 3 2005 DE8EBREajV,b~ 8~NITORJNa PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD's Motion for Excused Absence (Doc. No. 3961) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts.gov - o:ared ecf@ared . uscourts.gov 91essage-Id:\u0026lt;5l2094@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Bee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/1/2005 at 10:47 AM CST and filed on 11/1/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3962 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3962,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005244 Docket Text: ORDER re (3961] granting Request filed by Pulaski County Special School District for an excused absence . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 11/1/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document ~ riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=ll /1/200 5] [FileNumber=512093-0] [5el74b586773ed0230654b2ff6782410ddaf90592349b8d34ebe9e8fb838193bb8219d5e7deb637 37eb5a09d3233276cfeb29684853d6c3748clfdl47bc9d63b]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia .bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com _ :82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R . Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. a,9 Hudson Street 9:uite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .,I - ,,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 7 2005 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAl\\OM MOMtlORlMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005 The Court's Order of June 30, 2004 was explicit and understood by the parties. This is reflected by the fact that no party sought clarification or other action thereon. The LRSD officials appear to oppose the remedy set forth by the Court. It is reflected in their inactions and overt actions as well as set forth below. 1. LRSD's evaluation plan is based in large part upon student achievement data being assembled by the ADE in connection with the \"No Child Left Behind\" requirements which the Arkansas Department of Education is charged with overseeing. 2. In previous years, the ADE distributed student achievement data in one phase. Those data were normally made available to LRSD and similar districts by July 1 of each year. 3. The LRSD assembled an essentially new staff for the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) between September 2004 and November 2004. 4. The LRSD failed to understand the ADE's timing for the release of student achievement data to LRSD regarding the 2004-2005 results. 5. The ADE changed the process during the summer of 2004 in order to address additional grade levels, to establish new \"cut-off' scores for determining \"proficiency,\" and for other ADE purposes. 6. Between July 1, 2004 and December 1, 2004, ADE officials created committees to address new testing issues contemplated by the \"No Child Left Behind\" Act. 7. As of September 23, 2004, three months after the Court's June 30, 2004 Order, the District had not hired Dr. Steve Ross. See notes of Gene Jones, p. 2. Indeed, Dennis Glasgow, Acting Associate Superintendent, reported that sentiment was against using him because he was not an advocate for the LRSD. See G.J. Memo, p. 1. 8. On December 9, 2004 the ADE distributed a video document to LRSD school officials which notified the PRE that test data distribution from ADE would be delivered in two rather than one phase as had been done in the past. The second \"phase\" was to be distributed in the \"fall\" of 2005. The ADE was explicit in notifying the LRSD that Phase I data would not be sufficient to allow a determination of appropriate student placement on the benchmark examinations. Phase II data, due in the fall, would allow placement of students into one of four rating categories. A copy of the video is being delivered to the Court by the ADE. 9. LRSD should therefore have known in December 2004 that additional time was . necessary in order for it to comply with the time requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 10. That the LRSD knew in December 2004 that additional time was necessary to meet the Court's October 1, 2005 deadline for filing the step 2 evaluations is reflected in the response - for documents to Mr. Phil Kaplan dated October 31, 2005. Therein, Mr. Gene Jones reflects that on December 16, 2004, ODM met with PRE staff and explained that the \"states benchmark tests will not be available in electronic format until September of each year. The group thought they should consult with the outside consultants before deciding how to proceed.\" 11. In February 2005, Mr. Heller wrote Mr. Walker to explain that he intended \"to ask the Court to extend the deadline for filing evaluations.\" See Ex. A, hereto. Heller attached letters from Dr. Stephen Ross and Mr. James Wohlleb at the time. Dr. Ross referenced past time experiences with ADE. Mr. Wohlleb expected the ADE data by mid-July. 12. The Wohlleb and Ross letters reflect that neither they nor PRE had an understanding that the ADE would be providing the data in two phases; and that the necessary electronic data needed for the step two evaluations would not be available until the fall (October) 2005. 13. Ross was not hired until February 1, 2005. Accordingly, he had no contact with the ADE before that and would not have knowledge about the actual dates that he could expect the electronic data necessary for his work. 14. On March 15, 2005, Mr. Heller informed ODM that LRSD would not be requesting an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for the reason that LRSD expected to have the data by July 1, 2005. IfLRSD didn't get the data by July 1, then Mr. Heller indicated he would then ask for an extension of time from the Court. 15. Mr. Heller has indicated that he spoke with Joshua Counsel Walker in June or July, 2005 and that Mr. Walker announced opposition to delay. Response to the Court dated October 4, 2005. Mr. Heller took no further action regarding the matter. Opposition by counsel is not a sufficient basis to excuse the District's failure to promptly act. 16. Between March 2005 and September 29, 2005, the District reduced the PRE staff by - three people, all of whom had been previously reported to the Court as \"highly trained professional\" staff members. They have not been replaced. This is a further indication of the seriousness with which the LRSD addressed the Court Order. 17. Between June 30, 2004 and November 3, 2005, the only contact between Dr. Gail Potter, ADE Associate Director for Curriculum and Research and Dr. DeJarnette involved whether a non certified staff member could hold the position of testing coordinator. That occurred a few weeks ago. Neither Dr. DeJarnette, nor Mr. Heller, made any inquiry of whether the required data could be produced within the time frame approved by the Court. D.r. Potter indicated that it could have been produced although there were some costs associated with earlier production. 18. Dr. Potter further indicated that the LRSD had not met with her or her office staff regarding LRSD's compliance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 19. According to Dr. Potter, the 2003 Legislature required the two phase process for production of Benchmark data. Mr. Heller, therefore, should have known in the fall of 2004 and the spring of2005 that the two phase process would change the time equation set forth by the Court. 20. The reasons proffered by the LRSD establish that they knew, and knew that they should have known, that the deadline of October 1, 2005 for plan compliance could not be met and they deliberately refused to promptly so inform the Court and seek delay. 21. The excuse for failure to seek early Court approval for compliance with its October 1, 2005 deadline is that the district's counsel was busy with another important case. The Court notes that the district counsel are several; that the District is represented by the States's largest law firm, and that other counsel are assigned to work on this case; and that when called upon to reply to the Show Cause Order herein, the District and its lead counsel took it seriously and. promptly complied. They hired not only outside counsel for Mr. Heller but for the District as well. That counsel filed the pleading for the District. The District could equally seriously have addressed the June 30, 2004 Order. Its refusal to do so is contemptuous. The action required was simple; the District's refusal to promptly request an extension oftime was wilful. Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC IO IO West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John W. Walker ..,,:;ui. vv1J..J..1Lvvv a.\"t. ii:vo:'i.J. - zrom to Pl/~ FRIDAY FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 www.fridayfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 371Q100 Subject: JOSHUA'S WITNESS.SUMN!ARIES. Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :08 Pages\"Sent: 5 . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW..JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSIIlJA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DA TED OCTOBER 31, 2005 The Court seeks as explanation for LRSD' s failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1, 2005requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain wh.y delay was not promptly sought. The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Court's limited concern would be addressed on November 7, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD: 1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or .the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 20 minutes 2) Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh: his involvement in the process was also minimal; not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 15 minutes 3) Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJarnette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses, Ors. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller; (b) her minimal involvement in  the process; and, (c) her failw:e to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time.for compliance with Joshua.. the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes 4) Joy Springer: (a) will address Mr. Heller's contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller informed Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005; (b) that JWhen Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12, 2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing; ( c) Joshua's efforts to be involved in the process; (d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline; and (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross' further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes 6) Mr. Gene Jones: will addtess the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice givei;i by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response ofthe LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted. ls/John W. Walker: John W. Walker~ AR Bar.No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 uou; v~, ,.J.i.1 ~vv;.; \u0026lt;:1.. c. .1..i. : .i.v: vo - .i:rom - to Pb/ 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11J0212005 Page 4 of4 CERTIFICATE Q)f SERYJCE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, l electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other.means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner; Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Cbachkin NA.'\\CP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, .Inc. 99 Hudson Street L Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger- Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center. Street Suite200 -Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn. Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn. P:A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John w. Walker 4- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO COURT'S OCTOBER 31. 2005 ORDER - LRSD'S WITNESS SUMMARIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In response to the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witness will take thiliy minutes. LRSD does not expect to can Dr. Brooks a,; a witness, as the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. l. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring l Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that LRSD' s Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful; that he had access to all relevant document,; and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr. Catterall which took place on October - 17, 2005; that LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required Step 2 program evaluations; that OC:11~ V.)/.1..1./.GVVO a\"'t .1.1:01:.L::\u0026gt; - .from to p3/ 11 PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work; that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Court's compliance remedy; that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSD' s compliance; that PRE, as far a.c; he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by. Dr. Catterall which took place on October 17, 2005; that LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansac; benchmark exams for their completion; that such data was not available in a form useful to LR.SD' s experts before October 1; that the reporting of Arkansas benchmarkresults is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education; that there is nothing LRSD could have done to ha,;ten the reporting of benchmark exam results; that in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations; and that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline; that LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3\u0026lt;Yh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets LiUle Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testify that she is director of PRE and has been since September 17, 2004; that implementing the compliance remedy has been PRE' s top priority during  the time she hac; been it,; director; that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy; that LR.SD hired Dr. James S. Catterall, a qualified expert, to evaluate it,; 2 uou\u0026lt;. v~1.1.11 ..cuuo at: .1.L: o,: 4;j - trom - to p4/ ll \"I Year-Round Education (YRE) program; that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross. a qualified expert, to perform the Step 2 evaluations of SMART/fHRIVE, Compa'is Learning, and Reading Recovery; that Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of -Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy; that they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004; that PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSD' s progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy; that, beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court; that those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam resultc; would be available in July 2005; that during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request; that LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision; that the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirement,; of the Compliance Remedy; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansac; benchmark examinations; that in order to be useful to Ors. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form; that the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005; that the reporting of Arkansa,; benchmark examination result'i is entirely within the control of the Arkansa'i 3 ot:;ui, v~1.1J.1:.cvvo a-c .1.1:::\u0026gt;tj : .L4 - rom - to p5/ll Department of Education; that there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results; and that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy; that the requested extension of time wa,; made in good faith bac;ed on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy; and that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRS_D - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005. 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310--455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4 Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58 :36 - from - to pS/11 Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance; that 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005; that such information is not yet available; and that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30, 2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations wa.,; completed in a timely manner and that he was waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations; that it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his a.-;signment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3Qlh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004-as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same a,; that of Dr. Karen DeJarnette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 7220 I 5 Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); that she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansac; benchmark examinations in particular; that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be releac;ed in July 2005; that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committees were \"working to reset the cut scores for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams\" and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phac;es; that Phac;e I would consist of cd' s containing raw score reportc; which would be shipped to districtc; no later than July 1, 2005; that \"assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\"; and that \"Phase II Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"; that the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be releac;ed in mid-November; that releac;e of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and iL'i contractors; that LRSD has done nothing to delay the relea'ie of the results; and that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller will testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29, 2005 - ba'ied on a good faith belief, after rea'ionable inquiry, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6 ben~ 03/11/2005 at 11 : 59:25 - from - to p8/ll true; that he filed a response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order on October 4, 2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true; that, having now had the oppo\\tunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSD's Response to Order\" probably occurred in February or March rather than June or July. The principal reamn for not filing LRSD' s Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsel's intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee; that matter was scheduled as follows: May 5, 2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005; May 19, 2005 Oral Argument; June 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed; July 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits; June 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters; July 19, 2005 MUltiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks; July 26, 2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations; August 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings; September 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7 bent 0~11112005 at 11:59:47 - from - to p9/11 in July and that the October 1, 2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJarnette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fa'ihion because of his involvement in the Lake View cac;e. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted, Philip E. Kaplan (68026) :({aplan, Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan (q) kbmlaw. net Isl Philip E. Kaplan 8 .:::\u0026gt;t::Ul:. V;j/l.l./,UU::\u0026gt; at lZ:OO:OZ - from - to pl0/11 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the foJJowing: mark..hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Philip E. Kaplan 9 ~eni u~111,~uuo at 11:56:33 - from to pl/ 11 FRIDAY FRIDA\\ ELDREUGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY P ARTNERSIIlP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-349-J www.fridayflnn.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended onlv for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dis1nbution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 3710100 Subject: Attached Response to October 31, 2005 Order Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :55 Pages Sent: 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-1 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITI'LE ROCK DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MR.C'') for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year. The MR.C communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 22, 2005 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the :MR.C's final budget for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed 2005-2006 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE , ,,. . \"' Case 4:82-cv-,Q0~66-WRVV.~TR ~ocumeJJt 3972-2 Filed 11/08/?005 Page 1 of 16 1V1agnet Kevzew Committee 1 ~ North M!1fn Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758--5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {EMmail} September 22, 2005 The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. Judge, u. s. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Rece,veo w SEP 2 8. 2005 U n,S. R! Wllson .6. .. o. Drstrtct J , Jr. Of Ar'\"-anUsadsg e On September 20, 2005, Mark Milholleo, CbiefFimmci.al Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Cnnmrittee with the final figures for the 2004-05 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1) and was furwarded to MRC members prior to their vote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of S--0, with the Joshua Intervenors representative absent, approved the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2005--06. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Cotnt for approval: 1. FINAL 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $27,964.934.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditme of $7,237.00, ca1culated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,864.00 students. Actual attendance records of3,862.90 students set the final budget figure at $27,948,760.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure at $7,235.00, or $2.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. Thii final 2004-05 document reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2004. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue thePossihilities of Magnet Scht\u0026gt;ofEnrollment~ ~ ~ I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-ilTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 16 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- September 22, 2005 2. PROPOSED 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS B~T The total proposed budget for the 2005--06 school year is $28,849,578.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,862.90, which results in a perpupil expenditure of $7,468.00 and an increase of $233.00 over the 2004-05 actual rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, fiinge ben~ insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2004-2005 flnaliud budget in the amount of$27,948,760.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$7,23S.OO, as well as the proposed 2005-2006 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed~ mahttauring the quality of the Stq)ulation magnet !!Chools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of~ magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent .poS811\u0026gt;1e. , Sincerely, ~~~ Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Pt-Qposed 2005-2006 Stipulation Magttet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring . J, .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 . . 6.0 $574,294 $574,594 $577,006 02 10.0 $700,207 $700.207 10.0 $704187 03 S allsts 40.0 $1,968 829 $1,994125 40.0 $2,060,208 04 Counselors 13.4 $750109 $711,567 13.4 $745,756 05 MedlaS 6.5 $351986 $335,378 6.5 $333386 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $132,463 $132409 3.0 $135929 07 Mu 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 7.6 $427,864 $433,041 7.6 $442,679 10 ucatfon 9.6 $457,289 $506 10.0 $621519 11 Glfled 5.4 $294,408 $291 ,443 5.4 $296,023 12 Classroom 194.3 $9,737,515 $10 114 194.3 $9,892,360 13 Substitutes 0.0 $268,000 $257,280 0.0 $293,000 14 Other-Kind arten 16.0 $761,295 $776 058 16.0 $729,204 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 311.7 $16,424.258 $16,827 3122 $16 831.258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.4 $608558 $602,689 20.4 $621 784 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $277,088 $263,501 6.0 $273,520 17 CUstodlans 30.0 $598 78 $572,068 30.0 $572,556 18 nServlces 1.0 494 $52,231 1.0 $65 19 rofesslonals-Other 6.0 $211167 $213,521 6.0 $176869 20 Other--Aldes 23.8 $513183 $598,784 23.8 $490 064 21 F $5446,402 $6,029,813 .  $0 TOTAL SUPP 872 $7720170 $7332608 $7744958 TOT $24,144,426 $24159815  $24,576 18 PURCHASED 22 Utilities 590300 620,218 : 589,700 SERVICES 23 Travel 42800 42,698 , . 40,000 (30} 24 Maintenance reements $0 $0 $0 - 25 Other 267,352 251,864 285368 TOTAL 30 900 452 914,780 915,068 MATERIAI..S, 26 sOfl!ce $0 $39 $40 SUPPLIES 27 lassroom 588,910 582,488 811,870 (40) 28 46795 31 586 45,470 29 Other 23,300 27685 , ..~,: 24,273 TOTAL 40 659,005 641,798 881 ,653 CAPITAL 30 211,819 105 033 70315 OUTLAY 31 $0 $0 $0 50 32 Other $0 $488 $0 TOTAL 50 211,819 105,521 70,315 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 11 541 6,986 7,800 60 34 Other $0 $0 $0 TO 11,541 6,986 7,800 TOT 1782 817 1,669 085 1,874,836 TOT 25 927.243 25,828,900 26,451 052 TOT AL LINE ITEM ECO 2,037,691 2,119,860 :---- ,: $ 2,398,526 :__ \"if'. - till ~ t:in~~'st~f MAGBK06.xls.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 4 of 16 .i,  ~ ;~-;~:~i,:l;jji w~9 ~ni '~Mt=;~~=M,iJWff 2 :~~~ 6 Jtc Stioends $35 557 $43 227 $29 600 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 849,008 $1,935 360 $2.194.000 Vocational $32 800 $16,764 $32 800 Athletlcs $81 826 $86.423 $101 626 Gifted Proarams $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $31.667 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 ~~ $0 $0 w English $1.500 $1,431 $1 500 Soeclal Education $4,000 $3.990 $4 000 Curriculum $2 000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $2.037,691 $2,119 860 $2,398 526 State of Arkansas $13,982467 $13,974041 LRSD $8,842,512 $8,958802 PCSSD $3,352998 $3336,095 NLRSD $1 786,959 $1,679 822 $1,733 20 Total Costs $27964934 $27948,760 $28,849 578 MAGBK06:xls, ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 5 of 16 . -:~ -::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-:-; . . .: ...... ?~=:~::::::::~~::: if :: : - . 75 1.0 94,975 STAFF 02 Assl Ptin. 1.0 $ 70,337 70,337 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 363,816 370,483 7.0 $ 364,972 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 116,229 87,048 2.0 $ 95,364 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 42,588 33,724 1.0 $ 43,n3 06 Art-PerfJProd. 3.0 $ 132,463 132,409 3.0 $ 135,929 07 Muslc 0.0 $0 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 o.o 10 s I Education 2.0 $ 121,944 $ 121,944 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 54,561 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,513,308 $ 1,630,112 30.6 $ 1,587,319 13 Substitutes o.o $ 45,000 $ 43,200 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kin arten 6.0 $ 238,380 $ 275,604 6.0 $ 222,523 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2 793601 $2914396 54.6 $2836,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 48,344 42,964 2.0 $ 54,128 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 46,709 49476 1.0 $ 49476 17 Custodians 81 000 n;i:31 4.0 $ 82029 18 Information Services 10,918 8,707 0.2 $ 10,928 19 Para rofesslonals-other $0 0.0 20 Other-Aides 121.n3 $ 106,757 6.0 $ 112,330 21 F e Benefits 20 910,605 $ 828,983 .-.. - ..- $ 922,519 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $1,225349 $1,114,104 13.2 $1,231 411 TOTAL {10-20) $4,018,950 $4,028,500 ~ . $4,068,108 PURC~ED 22 Utllltles 73,000 $ 68,886 -:-:.;::-~:;.::::::-:;~:-'-,:~-: $' 73,000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 5,000 $ 3,243 ...... ..... ; $ 5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 :~.::::::;:;;::;::::~;::;::::;:;::;~-: ..,.,,, , ... , ... ,,,' 25 Other 31,440 ,..:~.,,..-..,.: '' \u0026lt; $ 30650 TOTAL 30 $109,440 $106,650 MATERIALS, 26 Prln rs Office $0 .. SUPPLIES 27 R ular Classroom 90381 $ 104,328 $ 97,448 (40} 28 Media 9,500 $ 9,354 $ 11,000 29 Other 3,100 $ 3,989 $ 3,812 TOTAL 40 $102981 $117,671 ,:......, .... $112,260 CAPITAL 30 12.000 $ 4336 ,:,-~.y. -- $ 7000 ., ' OUTLAY 31 fr etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTAL 50 $12000 $7,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 2,500 1 000 60 34 Other $0 TOT $2,500 $1 $1 000 TOTAL $226,921 $228,910 TOTAL $4.245,871 .8 $4 7,018 TOTAL LINE ITEM $308 060 0 '' $353,589 : ,  *-\"Atd\u0026amp;N%% .f. .. ::: 'f ~ :m wm .: B!6USN Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 6 of 16     . Aihletic,s $0 $0- $0 ' ' GJfted  , $1'63 $1~ RantServtcee $$,~ $6,060 . . .. $237 : . $229 . ~7 --- -  -- ..- ------ -  -  - - UQat!Qn:=- -=--=- ::-..:....=.: :....c...;._ .. - ~  ..=;.:_ :_:_~ - - : ' ---~-  - - . . . .. . . : ___ =._  .-. :   .... ~- --  -...=..:...-'.:...--- -~---. ---~~~-~::::.... '  - Tota!J.lne Items. t   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 7 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED .SERVICES (30) 05 Med!aS 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 2 13 Substitutes 14 other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 11 custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 21 Fringe Beneflts{20) .~ i $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 TOTAL 10-20 ... ,. ....... . 22 Utflltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other  TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, 26 ars Offu:e SUPPLIES t-2--7'-+===r;..;;C.,.:tass=roo\"'--m---- (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTlAY 50 29 Other 30 32 Other TOTAL 40 TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEM SECOND PA :,,.,,  ,,, . '.:'i $0 $0 $0 47,284 n.2sa 928 538 38,000 265,011 $2122,798 88,824 38127 76,000 10,918 $ $0 86,934 $ 716,338 $ $1,017,141 $3139, $0 10,000 $ 1,541 $ $0 1,541 $ $179 751 $3 319,690 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48,843 1.0 $ 74,295 1.4 1 022,752 21 .3 $ 36,480 0.0 $ 243055 5.0 $ $2,185 709 42.2 80,359 3.0 $ 40116 1.0 $ 70,190 4.0 $ 8,707 0.2 $ 0.0 154,392 4.4 $ 719,525 .... , . $ $1,073,289 $3,258998 53 791 12.6 89,431 ::: :-- 5,337 3903 : 98671 3,268 51,587 nno 937,752 38000 246,487 $2,088,601 82,152 41,328 75503 10,928 97,165 708,611 30 013 --- 95,513 nsoo 7,500 3125 88,125 8,500 8500 1,000 1,000 $193138 $3 297,427 $293,462 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 8 of 16 . e ... Athle.tlcs ..: .:- ::. - - . - xxxxxx - . -    - Totaf Une Items -  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 9 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICJ:S (30} MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTIAY 50 OTHER 60 04 Counselors 1 05 Medias 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 16 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kind arten TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 15 Secretar!es 1 16 Nurses 1 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 21 Frln e Beneffts(20) ~ : $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 Utilltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LINE ITEMS - SECOND PA 10,918 $ $0 77,786 $ 528,767 $ $765,423 327983 33800 S 3000 $ $0 29140 $65,940 $0 50784 1,795 2,000 54,579 136,519 $0 $0 136,519 500 $0 500 $ $257536 $2,585521 93,472 $0 247,541 51.456 1 61 ,583 1 70,775 54561 817 347 26880 104,205 $1527,820 38,153 28357 64,868 8,707 $741,165 $2,268 986 : 29,733 13,451 1 68,322 54,561 728,828 28,000 105,715 $1,523,399 30736 34548 67,314 10,928 60,630 510,816 27900 $68,900 35800 2,500 1,953 40,253 16904 16,904 1,000 1,000 $127,057 $2 365,429 $179,105 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 . . Filed 11/08/2005 Page 10 of 16' .. : . ./\" '!:dl.acatlolil - . -_ff . . - . . , . . . .. . ... . ~:;;::::~::::_; ::_: ::;.::::_ ~ _ _ .:, ...- _- _ - _ --_i f_---,:,:-_-=-_--._ ...~ . ,~~=,-:=,c;:;,,.,:~----=~=\"1.:-::-- . .  . - - - -- -.  ... .__ . ---- - . - . .. . . . XXXXX)( _, . ---- - . -- -- ----: . __ ~- --- --- - - -- -- -------~-' l00000t   . .. - ' -~:. Total Une Items -_: _ $151.496 . . - $157918 $119105 - - - - ' .:. 'Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 11 of 16 70337 283,755 ors 1 75572 1 05 Media 1 54,443 54,388 1 06 M-\"Perf.JProd. 0.0 $0 .o 07 Music 0.0 $0 o.o 08 Fo 0.0 $0 o.o 09 0.0 $0 0.0 10 ducatlon 1.5 $ 54,633 $ 51091 1 75,776 11 2.0 $ 108 026 $ 108026 109,181 12 Classroom 21.0 $ 1010,387 $ 1009 996 21 1,015,873 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30,000 $ 28,800 54,000 14 other-Klnd arten 3.0 $ 153,344 153195 154499 TOTA!. CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1934 678 $1,928 736 $1,987.218 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 77,568 $ 80878 86,520 STAFF 16 Nurses 1. 60086 $ 58864 1 58,864 17 Custodians 3. 68,278 $ 62,801 75,355 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,918 $ 8,707 10,928 19 Para[\u0026gt;tofesslonals-Other 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 55,023 $' 60,1 59,654 21 F e Beneffts(20} ~ $: 650,230 $ 544,76 660,432 TOTA!. SUPPORT SALARY 12.5 $922,100 $951,752 TOTAL 1Q..20 $2856m $2,938970 PURCHASED 22 Ut!lltles 60,000 60000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 3000 2000 (30) 24 Maintenance reements $0 25 Other 24527 $ 28,205 OTAL 30 87527 $ 90,205 MATERIALS, 26 Office $0 SUPPLIES 27 room 73500 62,520 82,600 (40) 28 7,100 16 4 700 29 3,200 3,084 2,904 83800 65620  90,204 CAPITAL 30 4,300 33,234 ;' :  .. 6,911 OUTI.AY 31 Ir, etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTA!. 50  4,300 6,911 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1 500 1500 60 34 Other $0 TO 1,500 2,5 1,500 TOT $177,127 $178, $188,820 $3,033,904 $2,922,99 $3127,790 TOT AL LINE ITEM ~ $233,789 $237,34 ;:, B.'1:~' : 111.or :. Qt . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 12 of 16 ' 2005--06 $2150 $0 $260055 $0 Athletf $0 $122 Plant $3793 $59 $0 178 !al Education 237 xxxxxx XXXXXlC Total Line Items $233,789 $237347 $267068  \u0026gt; I  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 13 of 16 as Medias 08 Art-PerfJProd. 07 09 12 Classroom 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 OTHER 60 17 Custodians 18 Information Servfces 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Frfn e Beneffls(20) .  .. TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL 10-20 22 Ut!Utles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 26 rs Office 27 Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PA ff:i@JtiS. ...,:. Ut:..Jr' .. 3.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 2.4 $172,922 $61583 $0 $0 $0 152,554 $85872 $0 $2,444329 $64,000 $0 $3401,755 $135,216 $40,000 $110000 $10,918 $25,000 $160107 $133,327 $2553,290 $61440 $3582,022 $140,551 $40 116 $107,978 $8,707 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 $174,168 $61 ,583 $167,562 $205 870 $2,562,745 $64,000 $3704,589 $144,132 $41 328 $109,965 $10,928 $78,162 $75,288 2.4 $75,615 $1,108,720 $1,057,353 '' :  :,,, $1,183,245 $60735 $259,735 $0 $129 600 $6,000 $6,000 $141,600 $26000 $0 $0 $26000 $3,000 $0 $281,814 $124,494 $5790 $6,960 $137,244 $44,358 $44,358 $630 $3,000 $630 $430 335 $464,047 $5,340,106 $5 476,062 $469 490 $4 70, 103 $15,000 $1000 $1,000 $511,469 $5 781,271 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 14 of 16  , - -- ' ' - - , - Attlleb Gffled ~ Edt,u:atfoll . ~ ' : - Gru~ .. , . -: . .-::...:....:: ,,..:....: )OQ0Q0( .c~-=~ - -  - .. TatalUnel!ems $470103 .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW,JTR. ~ Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 15 of 16 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 05 MedlaS 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 12 Classroom 13 substitutes 14 other-Kind arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 6.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 5.0 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 20 Other-Aides 3.0 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 UtllHles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, ~2;:.;:6;..+:,-Prl.;.;;n'-\"'cl=r;.;:;s..;:Offl=ce~--- - SUPPUES 27 R ular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 other CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 32 Other TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 other $486,691 $514,050 $226 317 $224 976 $50 499 $50 499 $0 $0 $0 $275310 $60020 $0 $3043,074 $63000 $0 $4608,865 $221,944 $45,878 $198 000 $10,905 $186,167 $87,505 $1,531,743 $2,282,142 $6891 007 $168,000 $24,800 $272,933 $80863 $3080,766 $60,480 $4688,522 $219,785 $46,572 $188 995 $8,697 $213,521 $84,946 $2,157,859 $6 846,381 : : $181,796 : $15 972 :._ 4.0 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 8.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 5.0 3.0 $0 $94300 $287,100 $125,483 :-:~ - - - : ' $0 $180,145 $13,400 $5000 $198,545 $23,000 $0 $0 $23000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $323,251 $39 $146,683 $9930 $6,967 $163 618 $19,837 $19837 $2701 JW% $105,050 $298904 $509,197 $230,123 $50499 $275117 $98,020 $3,059,843 $64,000 $4690 753 $ $10,915 $176,869 $84,670 $307522 $13,400 $6,980 $327942 $16,000 $16,000 $2,300 $511145 $509,406 $625 442 105.6 $7,402,152 $7,355.788 107.1 $7,582,118 62 259 \"'.'.' : . , .,,,::  . 296 Q!P.J.ii ~ 'YWM ,.Ml\\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Page 16 of 16 ~ . _ , - ', , v .;, .v.  . .,.-. 2004-05 2004-05 2005-08 ,500 $17,655 20750 $0 0 $0 Indirect $539n2 $556,534 $640,484 Vocational $18 513 $9,410 $18,611 Athletics $46,609 67851 $80 774 G rams $0 $0 $0 Plant $9,342 $9,106 $9,342 Read! $146 $144 $146 I $0 $0 $0 $438 $412 I Education $1168 $1147 Curriculum xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $621,488 $662,259 $n2,296 1,110.82 M. SAMUEL JONES, Ill DIRECT DIAL 501 688 881 2 11!: MAIL S.JONll!:S@MWSGW,COM LAW O FF IC ES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501  6888800 FAX 5016888807 November 10, 2005 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S .D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING !541 4 PINNACLE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 500 ROGE\"R8, ARKAN BA  72758 81 31 TELE~HONII!: 479484 5650 FAX 479484 !5880 I have the Court's Order dated November 8, 2005, respecting the MRC budget. On behalf of the PCS SD let me please state that it has no objection to the proposed budget. MSJ:ao cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. cf ~ones, III i. er Documents \"2-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 U.S. District Court Eastern Districf of Arkansas I \\J\"otice of Electronic Filing / fhe following transaltion was received ;om Jones, M. entered on 11/10/2005 at 4:20 PM :ST and filed on 11/10/2005 ' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 .cument Number: 3974 Docket Text: IBSPONSE re [3972] Order, by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) fhe following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stam-p: :sTAivlP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/10/2005] [FileNumber=520387-0 I [2b05c454b6626b279aaab8d9a110b52b6c7db27b72252a7882ceb0e89371e18c2ea )28d381e846109b4bd340956d9750d5a162780ela98686576276197543ee0]] t:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: \\.1ark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com,  Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, \\1ark Arnold. Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, .ecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov :hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net vi. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com ;tephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com )hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ;baron Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com rohn W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; springer@gabrielmail.com l:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: ...,layton R. Blackstock ~chell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 10 West Third Street )ost Office Box 1510 ~ittle Rock, AR 72203-1510 -.J\" orman J. Chachkin -.J\"AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. }9 Hudson Street ;uite 1600 -.J\"ew York, NY 10013 timothy Gerard Gauger \\rkansas Attorney General's Office :atlett-Prien Tower Building ;23 Center Street ;uite 200 jttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 -'ames M. Llewellyn, Jr rhompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn,.P.A. . i aW South Eighteenth Street ~t Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 8ffice of Desegregation Monitor 8ne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompso~ Thompson \u0026amp; Lleweltyn, P.A. i 12 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 R!CftVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NOV 14 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'OIDNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order regarding the Magnet Review Committee Budget, LRSD states that it has no objection to the budget and agrees that the budget should become effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ ag. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller R:x Dat e/Time 5013744187 P.002  NO'v . 15. 2005 NOV J. ~ LOO~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW.JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO THE  COURT'S ORDER OE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 PIAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, the Joshua Intervenors oppos~ the budget as presepted. I. There is no explanation for the increase in special education costs. 2. There is no e:xplanation for the substantial increase in the regular classroom material and supply costs. 3. There is no explanation for the material increase in the indirect costs. 4. To approve the budget as it is written by increasing costs will tend to favor students in racially balanced schools and disfavor students in majority black schools . This is so because double funding has materially been eliminated in the racially identifiable schools being closed (Mitchell and.Rightsell) and the district has engaged in budget cuts whi~h reduce services and - educational programs to the students who are enrolled in. o.onmagnet schools. Rx Date/ Time NOV-15-2005(TUE) 08:59 5013744187 \" NOV': f's. 2005 g : 30AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO. 163 L Wherefore, Joshua requests that the court set this matter for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. WalkeJ;, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF sytsem on this 14th day of November, 2005. LsUohn Y{. Walker P. 003  Rx Date/Time NOV-1 5-2005CTUE) 08: 59 ~ NOV. 15.2005 9:29AM JOHN W WALKER PA 5013744187 N0 . 163 JOHN W WALKER, P.A .. Attorney at La.v 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: November 15, 2005 To: Donna Creer Fax: 758-5366 Re: MRC Budget Sender: John W. Walker P.l/3 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVEALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374--3758\u0026gt;'1 The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged qnd confidential infonnation intended only for tho use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. P. 001 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its response to the Court's bench  ruling of November 7, 2005, states: 1. The Court has directed LRSD to file \"a proposed order which would - outline how this one matter will be handled until. we get the final evaluations as LRSD has agreed to do.\" 2. Dr. Ross now has all of the data he needs to complete the Compass Leaming, SMART/TIIRIVE and Reading Recovery evaluations. Dr. Ross expects to be able to produce preHminary evaluations of those three programs by December 21, 2005 and ''final drafts\" by mid-February, 2006. See November 11, 2005 letter from Dr. Ross to Dr. DeJamette attached. as Exhibit A. 3. Dr. Catterall requires scale scores from the 2005 benchmark exams in order to complete his evaluation of Year-Round Education. LRSD expects that the  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 5 scale scores needed by Dr. Catterall will be available within the next seven days. If that can be done, Dr. Catterall expects to produce a draft report by December 31, 2005 and a final report not later than February 3, 2006. See November 9, 2005 letter from Catterall to DeJarnette, attached as Exhibit B. 4. LRSD has a regulation (IL-R) which applies to the review and completion of program evaluations. A copy ofregulati.on IL-R is attached~ Exhibit C. The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department estimates that the requirements ofregulation IL-R can be met within the following amounts of time after a draft evaluation is received from an external consultant: a. The evaluation team meets with the evaluator to review the report and provide feedback - one week; b. The evaluator incorporates the feedback provided by the evaluation team and produces a \"near-final\" draft- one week; c. The stakeholders, including Joshua, ODM and the LRSD cabinet and Board review the near-final draft - 30 days; d. The LRSD Board discusses the report with the evaluator at the Board meeting immediately following completion of the 30 day review and approves the final evaluation report. 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 5 5. Given the time required by Drs. Ross and Catterall to complete their work, and for the review and approval process required by LR.SD regulation IL-R. LRSD proposes that the Court's Order concerning the completion of the 2004-05 Step 2 program evaluations contain the following language: a. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART ffHRlVE and Reading Recovery as soon as LRSD receives those reports from Dr. Ross. LRSD expects to receive those reports by December 21, 2005. b. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation report concerning Year-Round Education as soon as it receives that report from Dr. Catterall. LRSD expects to receive that report no later than December 31, 2005. c. If LRSD learns th.at it will not receive any preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the dates set forth above, it will immediately so inform the Court and the parties. d. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation repons discussed above, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in 3  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. Upon completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations with the Court and serve them upon ODM and Joshua. e. If it appears to LRSD that the final evaluation repo~s may be delayed for any reason, LRSD will so inform the Court and the parties. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order regarding the completion of the required four Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the proposals set forth in thisResponse to Order. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christqpher Heller 4  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/1712005 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Oerk of the Court using the C.M/BC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ai,State.ar.us sjones@mwsr7.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol~ Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W, Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS November 11, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 s. Pulaski little Rock. AR 77W6 Dear Dr. DeJamette: Center for Research in EdUC!ltfonal Policy A lermenee Center of exce11ence 32S ~Ing Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Offlca: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free: 866,670.6147 Fex: 901.678.257 www mtrnPhlS.egu/s,p The spring 2005 benchmark scores have arrived for students in the three programs we are . evaluating for the Little Rock School District-Compass Leaming. SMARTITHRIVE. and Reading Recovery. While they do not include students' scale scores, the raw scores and perfonnance levels appear sufficient for our evaluations. In the nen few days. we will complete a review of the data files; assumina they are in usable form. we will then combine the benchmark scores with data collected during the past school year in preparation for our statistical analyses. Dr. Canen.11 and I agreed earlier that six weeks appears to be enough time for managing the data, analyzing the data, and writing our reports for your considaation. That means that the draft report will be ready for initial review during the Decemba holidays (target dau:: December 21. 2005) and our discussion of it will occur in January. ff there arc not extensive changes required. we plan to have the final drafts ready for you by mid-February. If we encounter any unanticipated problems or delays, we will notify you immediately on ~currence. Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions about this plan. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, PhD. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy I  Case 4:82-cv--00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 _u_N_IVE_R_s__m_ o_ F_c_A_LIF_o_R_N_IA_._L__os _A_ N_c_E_L_E_s____ _ --. . H:~~ ... k\u0026amp;O.CT  1M.V19  1ll\\llNC  I.OIMICll.11  a1vs-\u0026amp;  !AH DIieo  1AH Fl...0!800 ....,,_ - ~ - ~-- November 16, 2005 Karen DeJamett.e, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department tittle Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Utiie Rock. AR 77206-28'73 Dearl\u0026lt;aren: Onidua1c ScllOol off.duQl!on \u0026amp; Jnfornlion Studies r.o.Box951s,t LosAt1gdQ.CA 90095-1511 I understand that the 200S Benchmark iesults or studenfB participatf:ng in Year-Round P.ducatian have a:rlved at LRSD. They .include ~dents' raw scores and performance levels but not the 1eale scores. \u0026amp;cause of the need tQ link 2005 test scores with prior year test \u0026amp;cores a.s the only way to uses., progress in the YRE schools\u0026gt; I will need 2005 Benchmark scale scor~, l!1'\\d not taw test sco,:es to complete my analyses. As I stated earlier, the daia review, 8tatistical 8Nlyses, and composition of my draft :report will require about six week,. I still anticipate delivering a draft teport to you within 6 weeks of ~eivhig usable scale scares. A,suming these score, become available to m.e in the coming days, I would have a draft report to you by year'3 end and a final report to you not later than F~bruary 3, 2006. Sin\u0026amp;:erely, /\\~ 'Pt:dsor Vole~ (310) 8%$-S5'71 Pu: ($10)206-6293 l:;-m1il: jamucOgscla.11~la.cdu = EXHIBIT t Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff fnvolved in the evaluation of pr0grams required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations J Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved In its Board-approved Program EvaJuation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. {See Joint Committee on Standan:ls for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, T1 Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  UIIIH)' (U) - e'ialuatlons are lnfcrmatM, timely, and influential  Fauiblllty (F) - eveluations must be operable In the natural setting and must not consume more resourees then necessary  Propriety (?)  right:5 of Individuals must be protected  Accuracy (A)  evaluations should produce sound lnfOrmatlon Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of actMties that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include fonnative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots\". As rigor and fom,ality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs(++} indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses(+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and o1her examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note. however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports, ,_~ ,xH-I - ,--. 1 1c Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Fonna1lw Standard SUmmative lnfolmal Evaluation Procen evaluations Assessments {School Portia/las) Snaashots U1 Stakeholder Identification ++ ++ 0 0 U2 Evaluator Credibility ++ ++ + 0 U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection ++ 0 + + U4 Values Identification ++ + ++ + us Report Clarity ++ ++ + + U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination ++ + + 0 U7 Evaluation Impact ++ + + + F1 Practical Procedures ++ + + ++ F2 PolltJcal Viabillty ++ 0 0 0 F3 Cost Effectiveness ++ + + + P1 Service Orientation ++ ++ + + P2 Fonnal AQreements ++ + 0 0 P3 Rights of Human Subjects ++ ++ ++ ++ P4 Human Interaction ++ + 0 0 PS Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment ++ ++ + + P6 Disclosure of Findings ++ + + + P7 Conflict of Interest ++ 0 + 0 P8 Fiscal Responsibility ++ ++ 0 0 A1 Proaram Documentation ++ + + + A2 Context Analysis ++ + ++ + A3 Described Purposes and Procedures ++ ++ + + A4 Defensible Information Sources ++ + + ++ AS Valid Information ++ + + + A6 Reliable Information ++ + + + A7 Systematic Information ++ ++ + + AS Analysis of Quantitative Data ++ . ++ 0 + A9 Analysis of QualitatiVe Data ++ ++ + + A 1 o Justified Conclusions ++ + + + A 11 Impartial Reporting ++ ++ ++ ++ A 12 Meta-evaluation ++ 0 0 + 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensjve program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget. a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco. CA:. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include. at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated. a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation. and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required. then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation. the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularfy scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R A Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, induding a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 0. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research questlOn, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student perfonnance data should be included. {See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabinet) to stakeholders. {See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSOC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Mproaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry; Using Evaluation to Promote Stude!J! Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994}. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: 4 - - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Of STRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data:  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not beingsuccessful for the improvement of African-American achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board'.s agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 11. The Director of PRE wilt prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifJcations. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 5 --' NOV.18.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR D. Grade-level desaiptions of the teachers who were Involved In the assessment process (e.g., all fourth~grade math teachers. all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations 1o other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation.N Assessing Impact Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford. OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 2004 6 NOV.18.2005 1:22PM JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: Fax: Re: JOHN W WALKER, P.A. A.rtorney ar Lczy,; 1723 Broadway Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374~4187 FAX TRANS:MISSION COVER SHEET rt/n/oo - . MPI,t f~f / ~ 1i-ria a 11 -o, oo Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE l _ ,(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL   ''\u0026lt;(501) 374 .. 37S$\u0026gt;\" -- The information contained in tltis facsimile message is atmmey privileged and confidential information interui~d only for th.e usci of the individual or entity named above. ff the read.er of this message is nor the intended recipient, or me employee oi- ~ent responsible ro deliver it to the inten\u0026lt;1ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any dis3emimtion, disiribmion or copying of this communicirtion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and rerurn tbe original message to us at.the above address via the TJ.S. Postal Seivice. Thruuc you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1~ ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED NOY 2 8 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I have changed my mind on the Rule 11 ruling made orally at the close of the November 7, 2005 hearing -- it is set aside and held for naught. As was mentioned at the hearing, LRSD will not pay any part of Mr. Kaplan's attorney's fees or expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofNovember, 2005. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEC. 5. 2005 4 :18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO . 409 P.2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW~JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 P::.igP. 1 ,:if 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1R.ICT COURT .nA:s n::.KN Vl::STRl.CT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTIE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULAKSICOUNTYSPECIAL .~rwnnr nY\u0026lt;::'Tl)rr-r l:'T ,. r --------- .... ~'-\"\"_. , ...,.., ra..1.,1. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHER1NE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLJ.ThTTIFF IJ.t..t' .t..NLJANT~ INTER.VENO RS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO LRSD S RESPONSE TO THE COURT S ORDli'.\"A 01\" NQVJ,.1'-fflER \"!. 20~ Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, ieply to the LR.SD s response to the court s order as follows: 1. LRSD shall identify all members of the evaluation team and provide a written description for each of them of their respective roles and resp0Il3ibilities in the evaluation process. 2. LRSD shall identify the schools where each program being evaluated is being implemented. and it shall further set forth by school: (a) explain the current status of the program under evaluation; and (b) the number of students participating in each program by grade, race and gender. It shall also set forth budgetary information regarding each of the programs at each of the schools. DEC. 5.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.409 P.3 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 3. LRSD should be required to set forth a schc~e of dates for the steps that each evaluator and others will take to canplete the assi~ent of each evaluator. Specific, separate schedules are reeded for each expert because information provi~ by LRSD regarding Dr. Ross does not appear to be congruent. Compare paragraph 2 at page 1 (re final draft in midFebruary) with paragraph S(d) at pages 3-4 (Board approval of all four evaluations at Fehn1:ny 23, 2006 meeting). 4. The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and t.o the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated by any of the IRSD and expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of infonnation. 5. Joshua proposes that item S(d) should read: Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports discussed above, LR.SD tl:cugh. PP~ *ulll w.~t witrJ. the; OD?v1 , Jv:;huii, wU i.hc. experts to .~~i-,;,; and \"owld,;1 ik: wwm1;ni.:i of foshua and ODM r~gardmg thi. iha.ft lcpUl~. Joshua awi ODM shall aiso have tile right to 5u.l.11uiL tucw.er comments up until the time of Board action. jos.ilua Shall have the right to appear before the school board prior to the board action regarding the reports. lt is expected that the board members shall engage m open dialogue regarding any concerns that are voiced by Joshua or ODM at any meeting which the board holds regarding the subject. 6. After the time of final approval of the evaluatiom, Joshua shall have the right to comment to LRSD regarding the use being made of the evaluations. LRSD shall promptly respond to any such comments or inquiry. 2 DEC. S.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.409 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Respectfully submitted, W John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. i 723 Hroadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email address: inhnw11lkP.M1tty(n1ac!.cc\"' 22 Lvcust A ven.ue Lcxiugiun, MA 02421 iBl-862-1955 P. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Response has been electronically fifod with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC S)Stem which will send.notifi~tfon !(I such filing !C ill counsel of record, ls/John W. Walker 3 DEC. 5.2005 Date: To: FQ)C: Re: 4: 17PM JOHN W WALKER PA Tn1-lhT TJ\"7 U\"'-\"..\u0026amp;.....Lt ,,. Attorney at Law ] 723 'RrMdway T.itrl~ x,,.,.1i, J,,.1,,,..,.~,.~ 7-,-,11~ - ~ - - -----,  ...,..M..., I MVV T:lepl,onc (50lj J74-37J8 Fw; (50lj ji4-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET December 5, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 371-0100 --NO.409- P.1 . D A 1 . .ft. . Sender: John W. Walker YOU SHDrn,n RP.r'li'.rrn:. [ (fr:c!ud:ng CC\".,'~ .:h~ot}] PACE(S), INCLUDlNG T'.rilS COVER S.'f.!EET. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, ?LE.ASE CALL \"..;.(Svij 37-,.3758\u0026gt;:, The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomeyprivilegedand confidential infonnation intended wtly for the use of the imJMdllal or entity named above. If the reader of this message is l10t the intended r~~lp~ or we empioyee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified ihit 'iw.} ~tion, w.stn\"bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have ~i-.-::d :!ii, wwmunlcatiuii. iii error, piease immediate notify us by teiephone, and return the original message to ~ :.t :he =c: ~asi via .hu U .. S. Posual Sc,rvice. T'.nank you. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 PagRttE\\\\JED NO'J 2 8 100~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION Qff\\CEOf IDllG OESEGREGAl\\ON M0~\\10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS For its Response to \"Joshua Intervenors Reply to LRSD' s Response to the Court's Order of November 7, 2005,\" the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. 2. On August 20, 2001, this Court directed counsel for the ioshua Intervenors, for the second time, \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case.\" Order, August 20, 2001 (attached). 3. Counsel for Joshua has violated the Court's August 20, 2001 Order and Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, on Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2005, counsel for LRSD wrote counsel for Joshua to make the following request: \"I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District.\" Counsel for LRSD also addressed the question of Joshua's role as a monitor in this case: With respect to your representation of the Joshua Intervenors, I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD' s compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2. If you will identify Joshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you are representing a client, should be directed to me. November 18, 2005 letter from Heller to Walker (attached). 4. In compliance with the Court's November 7, 2005 bench ruling, the Joshua Intervenors filed today a Reply to LRSD' s pleading of November 17, 2005. In paragraph 4 of that Reply, Joshua proposes that the Court enter an order which contains the following language: The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and to the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 3 of 4 by any of the LRSD expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of information. 5. Without telling the Court what they are doing, and without providing the Court the relevant information set forth above, the Joshua Intervenors are asking the Court to overturn its August 20,2001 Order and the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Joshua seeks access to PRE staff members \"without limitation.\" Joshua requests that the \"presence of LRSD counsel\" not be required. The Court has already ruled on this issue, and Joshua should not be allowed to change that ruling, particularly without telling the Court what it is trying to do. 6. Many of the PRE staff are unavailable to help provide a further response to the pleading filed today by the Joshua Intervenors. LRSD expects that it will supplement this response upon their return after the holiday. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that any order issued by the Court concerning the completion of the evaluations required of LRSD not contain the language in paragraph 4 of the Reply filed by the Joshua Intervenors on November 23, 2005. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 l Ls{ Christopher Heller CERTIEI.CATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 23, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Cleik. of the Court using the CMJEC. system. which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us fil_ones@mws~w.com ~ones@ilj.com i9hnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Judge J. Thomas Ray Gene Jones U.S. District Courthouse Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ~/ Christopher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Case4:82\"-cv-=00666..-\\VRW JTR . ... Document 3982 Doetm ,ent a483 Filed 11/23/2005 Filed 0S/20t20Q1 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STA~DISTRICT COURT  ~~~SA8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG_ i O 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITI'LEROCKSCHOOLDISTRIC1,  p~ vs. PULASKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal., 'Defendants;        MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. et al.,  '   Intervenors, * . KATHERINE KNIGlIT, et al., Intervenoni.    ORDER  No. 4:82CV00866 SWW On August 17, 2001\u0026gt; the Cowt held a telephone conference in this matter toaddreS$ -several pending motions. For the. reasons stated at the telephone c:onference, the Court takes the following action on these motions: The Joshua Intervcnors' motion for pre1imimuy injunction [docket no. 3471] is hereby DENIED. Counsel fortbc-Joshua Intcrvenors aud Pulaski County Special School District have . .. . '. . indicated their intent to adibss., substance of the Josbualntcrvenors' related com:cted motion for relief from orders~ on April 27; 2000 and May9, 2001 by defendant Gary Smith  . . . '  [docket no. 3473] without_tbis Court's ~ce; therefore, the Court'directs the Joshua . . . Intcrvenors to inform the Cowt no later than October 17, 2001, whether it is necessary for the . . l Court to ruJe on tbia_motion or whed1c:r the moti~ should.be rcDl?ved from the Court's docket. Little Rock School bisuict's motion for protective order and.for' emergency hearing Court's considedion... (docket no. 3477] is bcrcl?YDF.NIED wrraour~ICE beaiuse itis not~ 11  !'for-th.e.--....._ ..._ , . EXHIBIT -.f ti: . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3483 Filed 08/20/2001 Page 2 of 4 .., Little Rock School District's motion for conteUlpt [docket no. 3480} is hereby DENIED WITHOUTPREIUDICE. To cls.rify its previous Order, the Court.directs counsel for Joshua Jnterveuors to go through counsel for die Little Rock School District when seeking infomiation.  from the district or district officials and pcrso~ that is pertinent to the ca.e. and to infon:n . .. counsel for~ Little RO\u0026lt;ik School District prior w oontacting district officials and personnel  about matters not currently before the Court. Con. cerning 11 Baker Recruitment Plan [docket no. 3456]; the Pulaski C.o unty Special ' J School District js directed to filo mrJ supplemental.information no later than Tuesday, August 21, 2001, and the Joshua Interveno.rs arc directed to respond 10 any supplement within five days from the date the supplcmcnt is filed. . -,J.._ _ . . IT IS SO ORDERED nns i/Jl_DAY OF AUOUST, 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRlct COURT iHIS OQCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COM~UANCE Wl1lf RULE 58 ~DIOB.ll{I) FRCP ON 2\u0026lt; -a ,. . ol ,..av_..JA__~.. ---- 2: Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 .W\u0026amp;UCltU.H.tlJ~W(lnf1,..) MICIU.\u0026amp;\u0026amp;.LMQOALP-.4 IYIOKM. 111aMM1.JL P.4. WALTDll. UILJU.r.A. JAMES A. MJTil1\". I . A.. DV1N A. 0l.UI. f ,A. Pkl.DU.la.\u0026amp;. UUllY.P..A. WIU.UMA. WADOSU..,._.,,A.. OaG\\l I. CAVIL JL. P.A. ICOT'J' J. UJK:A\u0026amp;UL P.A. J4 .... C, CXAU.  .. P.\u0026gt;.. IDUlT t. UACK. a., f ,A. TIIOMAII, LIOOlff, P.A. /. I.UUOWW.f..t. JOIUI MWIT WATIGII. P.A. I.U,U C. 1.UU. I\u0026amp;.. f.A f4U1,\u0026amp;u,ria[AJ,(1D,P,A. KAllYA.1.IORT, P.A. u..a.av w. auau. 1.1,,.. ,con x. ruca;u. r.A. 4. WYCICU1' )llUlr. JL. I.A. 0UY IJ.roN WUI, J.A.. MMU IDWAUll,U,all, I.A. IIICIC.OA\u0026amp;D- P.\u0026gt;.. J4MU M. 100-'0II, f.l.. TOIILU, /OIIU. I .A. IAMU W. AXTON. P,4. MYID D. WJUOIC. P.A. J. SKltKlm IUIHU. n\u0026amp;. P,-', IIHU't JI. GOU. P.A. OO\u0026gt;IA\u0026amp;.D a. MCOJII. P.A. MVRa II. OILU. I .A. WJWAW t'MO.._., U.ffU, P.A. CAM.A OUHJrillU IPAillCOUL f.4. JOUl'KI, IUUf, 11.. P.A.. JOWAJfNC. aw.u,.1.A. lUZ.UlfM.0.IIIIMU\u0026amp;\u0026amp;AY,J, . .\\. .L 000ff0111D.LA.'WION. P.A. CIWlto,t\u0026amp;ll Hllll:1. P.Jt- KTfl' I, 0DmlY1 P.A. 1.4\\aA NIMUY IMU'11. P.A. 1'11104 K JOKNIOlt. P,A.. M\u0026gt;NA1 I, SHARL P.A. U.WU II, IMIT\u0026gt;L I .A. WU.LU.M ... GWPIN n\u0026amp;. P.A. CIJ'INl\u0026amp;O w. rt..UNanT. f . A. VIA Fax Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD Dear John: FRIDAY El.DREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A UMITliD I.IAIUTY PARTIIERSHIP www.fridayflrm.ec1n1 o4GO WEIT CAPITOL AVlNUI, :SUITE~ LITTLEROCIC, AIUCAHSA.s 722Cl1-M22 TELEl'NONli .at-371-2011 n.X501376-2U7 1421-TH 'UTIIALL DIIIV\u0026amp;, IUJTI 1U P4Ylffll/1WI, 4,._ 1270Mlt1 nu,HONI \u0026lt;IJ'I-M .. i011 ,,x '1Mtf~ltU November 18, 2005 'D,UIW.1..UUllfOTON.1,i,. I. IG\u0026lt;=XAIL J'JCIIJIXI. , ,,,_ M-UYIII L OIU.IIIU I. COLIW.UI WUTUOO\u0026amp;. /Lo P.\u0026gt;.. Jol.lJIOlll. C0alnrllL,1.A. iu.z.NM. OWIJll, P-A. IAIIINl, JmlDaDl,P.4. JWIICJI\u0026amp; TlllftLI.P.A. JOIIPH   MC'XAY. P..A, AW.umu.A, IPLUL P.\u0026gt;.. JAY f , fAYloOI, P,\u0026gt;.. .MAffnl ... lilTIII IJ:r All W, DUU ,OIIPIIG, IIICIIClU aona T, lMlT\u0026gt;I ).YAHA.~MA\u0026gt;l 1IIIOTIIY C. IZE1L T, MICll\u0026amp;Ull .. 101 XAUII L HAUU.7 l.u.AJI M. CDTTOH UJaTUI' $. IOWl,..,UIDS Au.Jlf G. a\u0026amp;Yil l.Ol01\u0026amp;Y WIT~ t.0UMCa JCf.\\YYAMK.GIIDflll JCJIDI J. llllll\u0026amp;ICII .uwm.+.CAPPI- IU\\IIN L IDOU 1.W4'TNIY11UMII.JI. -1111,nwo-.. IWI-Yll,loUIPl11-.. Wl.\u0026amp;1T U/411 C. IMffll ... -...wona, IITWILMAJ'4U DaC L CUUIJJII UIUGO'laa L OOX IATftaYN 4. laUl4mC1t J. ADAM'nU-1 \u0026amp;.WMl,.u,JJ.Y .. - WlWMIII.IClnOtl.P.I.. WIW'AM~n\u0026amp;\u0026amp;Y WIWAM L PATTON, lL ._T, U,UII.I.J.LP.~ CMIUttofN\u0026amp; MIU.la Ll?Tl.l ROC~ T\u0026amp;LH1-a11MI P.Altlt1- .. ,..,.,_.,, It has been reported to me that you have been communicating directly with Little Rocle School District Administrators during the course of your representation of various clients, including the Joshua Intervenors. You lmow that the Little Rock School District is represented by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Your direct commllDication with our clients violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District With respect to yolU' representation of the Joshua Jntervcnors. I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2 If you will identify 1 oshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfil the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you arc representing a client, should be directed to me. CJH/bk Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Mr. John Walker November 18, 2005 Page2 cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJ amette Olivine Roberts IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR1CT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFACEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3938). A hearing was held on November 7, 2005 to discuss, among other things, the merits of the motion. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the hearing, the motion is GRANTED. The following is directed: 1. LRSD has until 5 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2006, to file and serve the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART/THRIVE, Year-Round Education, and Reading Recovery. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, Joshua will have fourteen (14) days to submit written comments to LRSD and PRE. Simultaneous copies must be sent to ODM and the Court. Before any Board action, Joshua will also have the opportunity to appear before the LRSD School Board to address their concerns, objections, or support regarding the evaluations. Joshua should promptly notify the LRSD school board if they intend to take - advantage of this opportunity. 3. lfLRSD learns that it will not receive a preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the date set forth above, it will immediately inform the Court and the parties. 4. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. After the completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations and serve them on ODM and Joshua. 5. IfLRSD learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reason, LR.SD must promptly inform the Court and the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKAJ\",SAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 151-0 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones  425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEQREQATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC'EIVED DEC l_-:- 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 sa'se'8'\"6'ii\".'tfi '\"1a/,j~iW?M iIa61\u0026amp;aFoaot\u0026gt;'Erri3:1r;?200 ~tat~fFo~n~d \"~ :rnr~$s700WJ~t~:12e=--=:.........-.=--==. ....... B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1779","title":"Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order and witness list, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order and witness list, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1779"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["45 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, order to show cause; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness list; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for excused absence; District Court, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONl.:rORING LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: QuestionNo.1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Court's direct, specific order? Response: LRSD, Joshua and ODM have known for months that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported. LRSD has known since September 19, 2005 that the Arkansas Department of Education would receive the results of the benchmark examinations from its contractor \"around the first of October.\" LRSD has now received hard copies of the reports, but the electronic data necessary for the evaluations is not likely to be available for two or three weeks. Question No. 2: Why was the motion not filed until the 11 th hour? Response: The Motion was not filed earlier for at least three reasons, all of which were influenced by the fact that both Joshua and ODM were aware that benc;hmark examination results had not yet been reported and that the experts could not complete the Step 2 evaluations without them. First, LRSD did not know until September 19 when the 2004-05 benchmark scores would be released, and consequently would have had to request an indefinite extension of time. Second, Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 2 of 4 LRSD discussed the situation with Joshua in June or July and was told by Joshua's counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSD' s filing of such a motion. LRSD decided that there was no point in provoking additional litigation during the pendency of its appeal. Finally, the need for the extension of time was dictated by matters beyond LRSD's control. The timing of the motion would not alter the facts that the experts need the benchmark results and that LRSD could do nothing to hasten the delivery of those results. Question No. 3: Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Court's directives with studied neglect? Response: No. Question No. 4: Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals - will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Response: No. LRSD believes in the merits of its appeal or it would not have filed it, but LRSD is not \"playing for time.\" The requested extension of time is not based on anything LRSD did or failed to do or anything that LRSD has any control over. LRSD hired outside experts to complete four Step 2 program evaluations in accordance with the Court's Order. Those evaluations cannot be completed in any useful form without the benchmark examination results from the 2004-05 school year. Those results are only now becoming available. LRSD has no authority over the grading or reporting of benchmark examination scores. Those things are entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 4 Finally, whether or not the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals relieves LRSD of its future obligations under the compliance order, LRSD has contracted for four Step 2 evaluations which have been substantially completed. LRSD intends to receive completed evaluations in accordance with its contracts with Drs. Ross and Catterall and to use the evaluations to help judge the effectiveness of the academic programs which are the subjects of the evaluations. Question No. 5: Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? Response: The motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in response to question four above, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, including the letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall. If the motion is denied, LRSD would be compelled to file the evaluations immediately, even though they would contain no analysis of the benchmark results and consequently would not be of much use in evaluating the effectiveness of academic programs. Drs. Ross and Catterall would - be extremely reluctant to have their work publicized before they had the chance to complete the evaluations by incorporating and analyzing the results of the benchmark exams. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag. state. ar. us sjones@mwsew.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3945 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501)604-5140 RECEIVED Facsimile (501) 604-5149 October 5, 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel: OCT 6 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONtTORINli A hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7, 2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature of the hearing will be entered furthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings; so please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM. 10/05/2005 11 : 15 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS C-' S9f.- RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-6140 Facalmile (501) 604-51A9 October 5, 20~ Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 F/4t A hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7, 2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature- of the hearing will be entered forthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings; so please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray; other lawyers of record, ODM. 10/05/2005 11:15 5016045149 WILSON FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TO: Chris Heller SamJone5 Steve Jones John Walker Robert Prc!lsman Mark Hagemeier ODM Mark Burnette DATE: /0 - ) ,., 0S Telephone: 501-6045140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 688-8807 375.1027 374-4187 781862-1955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are 7- pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this :facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R Wil U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morg1w. LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 PAGE 01/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RECEIVED OCT 11 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONtTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In the June 30, 2004 Order, I held that the LRSD had again failed to comply the desegregation obligations in 2.7.1 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 1 This Order, in part, reads: The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2004.2 At the risk of being redundant, I entered a July 26, 2004 Order which read: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do. 3 Late on September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline, LRSD filed a Motion to Extend Time to submit the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 'A September 13, 2002 Order held that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations except those contained in 2.7.1. 2Doc. No. 3875. 3Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). school year. Because of uncompleted tasks, LRSD requested an extension until January 2006 to submit the evaluations. To date, the motion has not been granted and no evaluations have been filed. Accordingly, LRSD and its counsel are directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005 and show cause, if any there be, why they should not be held in contempt of court ( civil) for violating the June 30, 2004 Order -- specifically, the directive to file the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October 1, 2004. With respect to LRSD's Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSD's Response to Order filed on October 4, 2005, LRSD and its counsel are directed to also show cause, if any there be, why they should not be sanctioned, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the representations and omissions contained in these two documents. Among others, I would like for the following to appear, some of them to give testimony:  A representative from the ODM;  Dr. Karen DeJarnette;  Dr. James S. Catterall;  Dr. Steven M. Ross;  Dr. Jim Wohleb;  Each member of the Little Rock School District School Board; Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District;  The persons at the Arkansas Department of Education who oversee benchmark examinations;  Such other person as any party may want to call as a witness. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the LRSD is directed to file a list of the witnesses who it will call at the hearing (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused 2 by the Court). Within ten (10) days after the LRSD provides its witness list, Joshua must file its witness list (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused by the Court). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT TIJDGE 3 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 a rman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 - rt Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD' S WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. 2. Gerie Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 ,Little Rock, AR 72201 - Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30th \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN-38152-3340 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONtTORING Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30th \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 6. Dr. Roy Brooks Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 7. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 8. All witnesses listed by other parties and witnesses who may be necessary to provide rebuttal testimony Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller , I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 12, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hae:emeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Isl Christopher Heller UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'ORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is LRSD's Motion to Excuse Dr. James Caterall (Doc. No. 3951) from the November 7, 2005 Hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. However, Dr. Caterall must provide Mr. Heller with a phone number where he can be reached, if necessary, the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3956 Filed 10/28/2005 . Page 1 of 1 ,AO 458 /Rey I Q/95} Appearance UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION NOTICE OF APPEARANCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l ET AL. To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Case No: 4:82CV00866WRW RECEIVED NOV -1 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONl-TORING Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, Christopher Heller, and Little Rock School District for the limited purpose of representing them in connection with the Order to Show Cause matter pending in this Court. Date I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court. Philip E. Kaplan Print Name 68026 . Bar Number 415 Main St. Address Little Rock City S0I-372-0400 Phone Number pkaplan@kbmlaw.net E-Mail AR 72201 Stale Zip Code e. KAPLAN, BREWER, MAXEY \u0026amp; HARALSON, P.A. PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOANN C. MAXEY REGINA HARALSON Of counsel: SILAS H. BREWER, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2005 TO: Manual notice recipients: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 101 O West Third Street Post Office Box 151 O Little Rock, AR 72203-151 0 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 -2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 METRO CENTRE MALL 415 MAIN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-0400 FAX (501) 376-3612 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FROM: RE: ENCLOSURE: Philip E. Kaplan Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. Notice of Appearance Page 1 of 2 Moler, Nina From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1 :42 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Appearance\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Kaplan, Philip E. entered on 10/28/2005 at 1:41 PM CDT and filed on 10/28/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3956 Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Philip E. Kaplan on behalf of Little Rock School District (Kaplan, Philip) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/28/2005] [FileNumber=509898-0 ] [412b34e7f6ff637f536357f8eae2491515cd9304e18c7fd6d0130a96c7cde7688dd bcf73 lf d6b5144c9dl 15cc34 77917 cf5695350684442050dc5ef702879e6a]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendley 1@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M: Samuel Jones , ill sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 10/31/2005 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of 2 Joh! n W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock . Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompso! n \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 10/31/2005. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education October 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOKI-TORlNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. J:;_J;fk Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer \\  - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 WRW V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2005. Resf fully Subu~tted, 5.11~;/'h. Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL  In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 ;,i;:~\"f~ :~~I'\u0026lt;! ;;{ij;f(;, t~ ~!!~f,i_i, i.1;,.,11.i,: ,-J:ff -;ft ~~~f\\ ~~~~!,', :,:~ ,ii~tv Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 ---AAIM-#Mii49 j . - i \u0026amp; ; It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff _ attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2005 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 Fii:CEIVED NOV -1 2005  OFFICEOF ~ ESEGREGATION MONR'ORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR EXCUSED ABSENCE The PCSSD for its motion, states: ONIHO!lNOW NOllV93H93S30 ~o 331!0 ~OOZ 1- AON 03J\\1303H PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS 1. Your undersigned counsel has reviewed the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, respecting witness lists and a summary of testimony. 2. The PCSSD does not intend to offer any witnesses or exhibits. 3. Indeed, unless the Court perceives that the presence of undersigned counsel would actually contribute to resolution of the issues to be addressed on November 7, 2005, then counsel for the PCSSD perceives no pressing reason to attend the hearing and requests permission to be excused. 4. The PCSSD notes that a telephone hearing may occur on Thursday, November 3, 2005. Perhaps this motion could be addressed at that time. WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel provisionally requests that his attendance be  excused at the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2005, and for all proper relief. I Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 I / By__:~:::::::.__2~~~.,L.::.-===/-----i - .com or P Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 31, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendley l@alltel.net  Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov belecia. bledsoe@arkansasag.gov  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net;tmiller@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com kate.jones@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net nmoler@kbmlaw.net  Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net scstreett@yahoo.com  John W. Walker j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com lorap 72297@aol .com ;j springer@gabrielmail.com 2. I certify that on October 31, 2005, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 1 0 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 3 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I I Attom for Pulas  ounty Special School District 1 HELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GA TES \u0026amp;  WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 4. ~,n Overton From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:45 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Request\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of eacl) document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing T--ollowing transaction was received from Jones, M. entered on 10/31/2005 at 4:44 PM CST and filed on 10/31 /2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3961 Docket Text: REQUEST by Pulaski County Special School District for Motion for Excused Absence. (Jones, M.) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: 10/31/2005 Document description:Main Document oenal filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l0/31/2005] [FileNumber=511556-0 ] [27a796d577la86afa01 l b9claf372225fa606eee72df386cfe2017bb789360lf32c 5905b36dd505a608052f4ac23ddlb78de76dbb28lee7f264acb41754b7c28]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia. b ledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher l Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net rvwamuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Joh! n W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 *le Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin 10/31/2005 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 9-udson Street SuTe 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 OJiw.ce of Desegregation Monitor ca Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompso! n \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 1013:11zoos UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV -1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONtlORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I have received copies of the proposed witnesses of the parties. It appears that there may be an overloading of the wagon with witnesses in view of the narrow scope of the show cause hearing scheduled for one week from today, Monday, November 7, 2005. In view of this possibility, each party is directed to give a brief summary of the expected testimony of each witness (brief but sufficient to let me know what the witness is going to testify about), and an estimated time for direct examination of each of these witnesses. These lists and summaries must be sent to me by fax by noon, this Thursday, November 3, 2005. Fax copies must be sent to opposing counsel and the original is to be filed with the Clerk. We may have a telephone conference this Thursday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. regarding the witness lists, so please mark your calender to be available. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIME-Version:1 . 0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;5ll039@ared .uscourts . gov\u0026gt; A ce: W ubject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions . ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/31/2005 at 1:53 PM CST and filed on 10/31/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3958 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3958,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005226 Docket Text: ORDER re [3950] Witness List filed by Little Rock School District , [3 955] Witness List filed by Lorene Joshua, (3948] Order to Show Cause , [3952] Witness List filed by Lorene Joshua. Each party is directed to fax to the Court lists and summaries of the expected testimony of each witness by noon, 11/3/05 and file the original with the Court. A telephone conference may be held 11/3/05@ 2:00 . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/31/05. (dac, ) A e following document(s) are associated with this transaction: ~cument description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l0/31/2005 ] [FileNumber=511038-0] [a625af27622bca56c03133f662d7b218073ba5233ed815d89d996539dl96233fd8be6913af3657d 3b438d0fc6b9789cdfl6a9d5174dfc8f5bde806ae3aa41084]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia.bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.,com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; - pringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon , PLLC ~ . ' .. 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 A orman J. Chachkin W AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William p: Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 . ort Smith , AR 72902-0818 )    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":7,"next_page":8,"prev_page":6,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":72,"total_count":413,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":412},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":135},{"value":"Oklahoma. Supreme Court","hits":34},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":16},{"value":"United States. Supreme Court","hits":7},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":5},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":5},{"value":"Freeling, S. P. (Sargent Prentiss), 1874-1937","hits":4},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":3},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":163},{"value":"School integration","hits":160},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":136},{"value":"Race riots--Oklahoma--Tulsa--History--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Race relations","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Social conditions--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":130},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":129},{"value":"Police misconduct--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Police--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":113}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":34},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":10},{"value":"Seaver, W. F., 1849-","hits":9},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":5},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":5},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":3},{"value":"Seavers--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995","hits":33},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":6},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Briggs, Harry, -1986","hits":1},{"value":"Ferguson, John H. (Judge)","hits":1},{"value":"Marshall, Thurgood, 1908-1993","hits":1},{"value":"Plessy, Homer Adolph","hits":1},{"value":"Robertson, J. B. A. (James Brooks Ayers), 1871-1938","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":240},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":168},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Tulsa, 36.15398, -95.99277","hits":132},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, 35.49209, -97.50328","hits":35},{"value":"United States, Kansas, Shawnee County, Topeka, 39.04833, -95.67804","hits":7},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":167},{"value":"Kansas","hits":7},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":5},{"value":"Texas","hits":2},{"value":"Alabama","hits":1},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1},{"value":"Georgia","hits":1},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":1},{"value":"New York","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1921","hits":129},{"value":"1946","hits":37},{"value":"1947","hits":37},{"value":"1948","hits":37},{"value":"2011","hits":30},{"value":"1997","hits":29},{"value":"1996","hits":25},{"value":"2002","hits":19},{"value":"2001","hits":18},{"value":"1998","hits":16},{"value":"2010","hits":15},{"value":"1999","hits":14},{"value":"2003","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":11},{"value":"2004","hits":10},{"value":"1954","hits":9},{"value":"1995","hits":9},{"value":"2007","hits":9},{"value":"2005","hits":8},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"2006","hits":7},{"value":"2012","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":6},{"value":"1953","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1923","hits":5},{"value":"1955","hits":5},{"value":"1957","hits":5},{"value":"1949","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1959","hits":4},{"value":"1960","hits":4},{"value":"1961","hits":4},{"value":"1962","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"1964","hits":4},{"value":"1965","hits":4},{"value":"1966","hits":4},{"value":"1967","hits":4},{"value":"1972","hits":4},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1994","hits":4},{"value":"1896","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1938","hits":3},{"value":"1939","hits":3},{"value":"1940","hits":3},{"value":"1941","hits":3},{"value":"1942","hits":3},{"value":"1943","hits":3},{"value":"1944","hits":3},{"value":"1945","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1975","hits":3},{"value":"1976","hits":3},{"value":"1977","hits":3},{"value":"1978","hits":3},{"value":"1979","hits":3},{"value":"1980","hits":3},{"value":"1981","hits":3},{"value":"1982","hits":3},{"value":"1983","hits":3},{"value":"1984","hits":3},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1986","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":3},{"value":"1988","hits":3},{"value":"1989","hits":3},{"value":"1990","hits":3},{"value":"1991","hits":3},{"value":"1992","hits":3},{"value":"1993","hits":3},{"value":"1772","hits":2},{"value":"1773","hits":2},{"value":"1774","hits":2},{"value":"1775","hits":2},{"value":"1776","hits":2},{"value":"1777","hits":2},{"value":"1778","hits":2},{"value":"1779","hits":2},{"value":"1780","hits":2},{"value":"1781","hits":2},{"value":"1782","hits":2},{"value":"1783","hits":2},{"value":"1784","hits":2},{"value":"1785","hits":2},{"value":"1786","hits":2},{"value":"1787","hits":2},{"value":"1788","hits":2},{"value":"1789","hits":2},{"value":"1790","hits":2},{"value":"1791","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1493","max":"2017","count":1304,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"judicial records","hits":413},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":45},{"value":"affidavits","hits":16},{"value":"briefs (legal documents)","hits":5},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"memorandums","hits":3},{"value":"decisions","hits":2},{"value":"forms (documents)","hits":2},{"value":"government records","hits":2},{"value":"legal documents","hits":2},{"value":"petitions","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":232},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":38},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":7},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":232},{"value":"Tulsa Race Massacre Collection","hits":132},{"value":"Ada Lois Sipuel v. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma, 1948-","hits":33},{"value":"Records of the Supreme Court of the United States 1772 – 2007","hits":6},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":2},{"value":"Eugene Avery Adams Papers, 1892-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History: The Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma. Department of Libraries","hits":166},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration","hits":7},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History","hits":2},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":2},{"value":"Dwight D. Eisenhower Library","hits":1},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":1},{"value":"Tarlton Law Library","hits":1},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Atlanta Branch","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":407},{"value":"Collection","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":413}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}