{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1789","title":"Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-12"],"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","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1789"],"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":["22 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: Court of Appeals, Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, notice of electronic filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, notice of electronic filing, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, Joshua intervenors' reply brief; Court of Appeals, certificate of service; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, letter-order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No. 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division Honorable William R. Wilson AMICUS CURIE BRIEF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE IN FAVOR OFAPPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General State of Arkansas SCOTT P. RICHARDSON #01208 MATTHEW B. McCOY #01165 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-1019 ATTORNEYS FOR ST A TE OF ARKANSAS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .. ............................ .. .... .. ............... .. ..................................... .. .... i Table of Authorities ................................................... .. ................. .. ..................... ii Statement of Amicus Curiae and Summary of the Argument.. .... .. ........ ............. I Argument. ... ....................... .. ............... ............. ............. .... ..... ...................... .... ..... 4 I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ................................. ............ ..... 4 II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. 7 II. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH A DESEGREGATION PLAN IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE .... .. .. .. ............ .... ... ... I 0 Conclusion ...................... .... .. .. .. ... ....... ... ..... .. .. ......... ..... ... ...... ..... .. .... ...... ... .. ...... I 7 Certificate of Service .......... .. ............ ..... .. ......................... .. ................... .. ......... . 19 Certificate of Compliance .... ... ... .... ..... ...... .. ... .. .............. .. ..... .. ............... .. ...... .... 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985) ...... .... ................ .. ........ ................... .. ... .... .. ... ..... 6 Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 (1983) .................................... ............... ........ ..... .. ...... 11 Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 (1991) .... ..... ... .. .. ... .......... ......... .. ........ .. ............... 2, 12, 13 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 (1955) ... .. .... 3, 12 Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 1999) .............................. .. ............. .... .. ............. 5 First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd. 477 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007) ............ ................. .... ..... ............... .... 10-11 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1991) ............... ............. .. 13 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) .. ... .. ....................................... .. ..... .. ....... .. ........ .. 12 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al. , 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004) ......... .... ...... .. ... .. ...... .. .. ..... ... ..... .. ... 3, 5, 14 LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006) ............ ........... .. .. ........ 3, 15, 16 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002) ................ 3, 13 LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004) ... ... ............ 2, 14, 15 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 23, 2007) .... ....................... ....... ................... 8, 9, 10, 15 United States v. Hively , 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006) ....... ........................... 11 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2003) ................................ 11 United States v. McCarthy, 97 F .3d 1562 (8th Cir. 1996).... ...... .......... ...... .. .. 5 RULES Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) ..................................................... ................ .. ...... ... 5, 6 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The State of Arkansas files this Amicus Curiae brief pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) in support of the District Court's finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has achieved full unitary status. The State's interest in this proceeding arises out of its status as a party to the 1990 settlement agreement in this case, its general supervisory authority over the LRSD, the over $60 million each year the State spends in support of the desegregation efforts of the three Pulaski County school districts in this case, and the State's interest in seeing that the three Pulaski County school districts substantially comply with their desegregation plans. The Joshua Intervenors argue on appeal that the District Court's judgment finding the LRSD to have achieved unitary status should be reversed and that the LRSD should be returned to its nearly fifty years of court supervision. In support of this argument the Joshua Intervenors argue three points on appeal: 1) that the District Court erred in its fact and credibility determinations, 2) that the LRSD failed to do enough in establishing its program assessment and evaluation process, and 3) that the District Court should not have returned to the proper standard by which to measure the school district's desegregation plan compliance. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in its factual findings. Their primary dispute on appeal with those findings is their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. The Court below properly chose which witness testimony to credit. The Joshua Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that the District Court abused its wide discretion. The LRSD took many steps and spent considerable resources to ensure that a process to continually assess and evaluate its key 2.7 programs was a permanent part of its curriculum. Although, the District Court had improperly imposed the heightened \"deeply embedded\" standard on the LRSD in this area, the record amply supports a finding that the LRSD met even this heightened standard. The District Court properly acknowledged that it had changed the law on the LRSD when it required that the district's \"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 997-8 (E.D. Ark. 2004)(emphasis in original). The correct legal standard is whether the district substantially complied with its desegregation plan in good faith. This has been the standard since Brown II was decided by the Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955). This standard was also clearly laid out by the District Court in its 2002 opinion finding the LRSD unitary as to the majority of its plan obligations, LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1035-36 (E.D. Ark. 2002), and was affirmed by this Court in 2004. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). In this Court's 2006 opinion, it clearly reserved judgment on the propriety of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F .3d 528, 541 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the \"deeply embedded\" standard is not the law of this case but was a departure from the settled law of this case. Two other school districts remain as defendants in this case: the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Spe~ial School District (PCSSD). A holding from this Court that the \"deeply embedded\" standard was proper would destabilize the settled law of this case. It would allow the standard for plan compliance to be changed without notice to these districts, as happened with the LRSD. Accordingly, the District Court's return to the proper standard should be clearly affirmed. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT Almost fifty years after the Little Rock School District's first major step in the integration of its schools, the District has achieved another milestone: a judgment from the district court granting full unitary status and complete release from court supervision. Through their appeal, the Joshua Intervenors seek to return the school district to court supervision. The State of Arkansas files this Amicus brief in support of the Little Rock School District's full unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors urge reversal of the District Court for three reasons: 1) they assert that the District Court was wrong in its factual findings because they disagree with the court's credibility determinations, 2) they believe that the School District's many efforts to embed a program evaluation process has not gone far enough, and 3) they assert that the District Court should not have analyzed district efforts using the good faith standard of substantial compliance. Because the District Court was clearly correct in each of its determinations, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed in all respects. I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS. The Joshua Intervenors argue factual errors based on their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. Most 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I notably, the bulk of the testimony relied upon by the Joshua Intervenors are not factual statements but mere conclusions of certain witnesses about the effectiveness of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) efforts to comply with the District Court's 2004 order. \"Credibility determinations are within the exclusive domain of the district court, and are virtually unreviewable on appeal.\" United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1579 (8th Cir. 1996). A district court's factual determinations, including credibility of witnesses, are reviewed for \"clear error.\" Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906, 909 (s1h Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) (\"Findings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses\"). The Eighth Circuit does not overturn a district court's factual findings unless it is left with the \"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\" Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., 359 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has instructed that Courts of Appeal may not reverse the district court's factual findings as long as \"the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety ... even though [the circuit court may be] convinced that had it been 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently\" Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-4, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985)(holding that appellate courts are bound by Fed. R. Civ: Pro. 52's clearly erroneous standard). The Joshua Intervenors point this Court to no objective basis for overturning the District Court's credibility determinations. \"[W]hen a trial judge's finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.\" Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512. The Intervenors focus primarily on the testimony of one witness, the director of the LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department: Dr. Karen DeJarnette. As demonstrated by the record, Dr. DeJarnette's reliability in drawing conclusions about the district's unitary status efforts was substantially undermined at the unitary status hearings. Indeed, she revealed herself to have lost objectivity in opining on this ultimate issue of the unitary status hearings. Her testimony demonstrated that she had realized the effect that judicial supervision over  2. 7 .1 assessments and evaluations had on her 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I office, which was charged with carrying out these programs, and for that reason she was willing to act in support of continuing judicial supervision of the LRSD. She was shown to have shifted from an effort to comply with the court's order to an effort to gather power to her department without regard to the decisions of district administrators or the advice of the district's attorney. The District Court properly chose to discredit her testimony. The Joshua Intervenors have not shown error in the District Court's  credibility determinations. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed. II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS As will be explained further in this brief, the District Court properly recognized that the requirement it imposed that the school district must show that its program for assessment and evaluation was \"deeply embedded\" in school policies, was outside the parameters set by prior court decisions and should be abandoned. Even so, the LRSD presented considerable proof that it had, in fact, \"deeply embedded\" a process for evaluating its  2.7 programs, those designed to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, and that it was sincerely committed to that endeavor. The Joshua Intervenors only evidence to the contrary is that a \"data warehouse\" was not completed and that the LRSD was still in the process of 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I developing school portfolios at the time of the hearing. These were initiatives to make the district's access to data on its students more readily accessible and better organized. However, the testimony and evidence demonstrated that the LRSD could produce accurate, reliable data on its student's academic performance without these programs. Chief among the District Court's factual findings in this regard is that the LRSD had in place a reliable process for gathering the information necessary to evaluate and assess its programs. ' 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. DeJamette and Mr. W ohlleb 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. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 * 17 ,r 23 (E.D.AR. Feb. 23, 2007)( emphasis in original). The Joshua Intervenors do not dispute this finding. Appellant's Brief p. 1. Accordingly, the undisputed factual evidence demonstrates that the LRSD has and continues to have ready 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I access to accurate, reliable data with which to assess and evaluate its  2. 7 programs. This was the same system used to provide data to Drs. Steven Ross and James S. Catterall for their  2.7 program evaluations. These experts vouched for the reliability of the data provided from this system in strong terms: \"All six of these evaluations were 'good evaluations.\"' Id. at *19 ,rs. \"Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare .t hese six evaluations of 2.7 programs.\" Id. at *20 if6. \"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.\" Id. at *21 ,r 2. Dr. Catterall \"stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts.\" Id. at *20 if7. The evidence presented at the unitary status hearings showed that the district's efforts to create a data warehouse, Id. at *16 ifl9, and school portfolios, Id. at * 15, if 13, were additional efforts that went well beyond what was required by the LRSD's desegregation plan and the District Court's 2002 and 2004 compliance remedies. Accordingly, the District Court properly concluded: 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 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. Id. at * 17 ,I 24. The LRSD presented sufficient evidence that it had implemented a process of assessment and evaluation that satisfied the District Court's now (properly) abandoned \"deeply embedded\" requirement. If there was any doubt, it was erased by the evidence of the district's moving beyond its then existing data mining capabilities to the great expense it went to in developing a data warehouse and school portfolios to facilitate the process of program assessment and evaluation. Accordingly, the District Court determined that even though the \"deeply embedded\" standard should be abandoned, nevertheless the LRSD had satisfied that standard and had left no doubt that its  2. 7 program assessment and evaluation process met the requirements of the district's plan. III. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE The law of the case doctrine provides that a court's decision on a rule of law should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent decisions in that case. First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd., 477 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007). It is an \"amorphous\" concept that directs the court's discretion, but \"does not limit the tribunal's power.\" Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 (1983). The doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders, which can always be reconsidered and modified by the district court prior to entry of a final order. United States v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006). As to appellate decisions, the law of the case \"ordinarily\" requires a district court to follow an appellate decision with re~pect to all issues directly decided by that opinion. United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2006). Of course, a district court is not bound as to legal issues not addressed by an opinion of an appellate court. Id. Even where an appellate court has addressed an issue, however, the district court may still reconsider and modify the decision on that issue. \"Under law of the case doctrine, as now most commonly understood, it is not improper for a court to depart from a prior holding if convinced that it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.\" Arizona, 460 U.S. at 619 fn. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 1391 fn. 8. Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that even where it has decided an issue of law, a district court is not prevented from revisiting the issue if the Eighth Circuit's decision was \"clearly erroneous and worked a manifest injustice.\" Manfre, 456 F.3d at 874. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Here, the District Court's insertion of a \"deeply embedded\" requirement into the case in 2004 was a departure from the settled law in desegregation cases. Since Brown II, the Supreme Court has held that a school district should be released from federal court supervision if \"the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955)(emphasis added). In Green v. County School Board, of New Kent County, the Court again affirmed that a school district's obligation of compliance was \"to be acting in good faith.\" 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1695 (1968). Twenty-three years later in a case on desegregation remedy, the Supreme Court again stated that a school district's compliance with its desegregation obligations must be weighed with a view to the \"good faith of the school board in complying with the decree.\" Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637-8 (1991). In Dowell, the Court rejected a request that a higher standard (not unlike the \"deeply embedded\" standard at issue here) be applied to a school district and held that the principles supporting a federal court's displacement of a school board's authority did not \"require any such Draconian result.\" Id. On the contrary, the Court instructed that \"[t]he District Court should 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I address itself to whether the Board ha[ s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree.\" Id. at 249-50, 111 S.Ct. at 638 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Freeman v. Pitts the Court rejected the assertion that a school district had to engage in \"heroic measures\" to demonstrate compliance with a desegregation plan. 503 U.S. 467, 493, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447 (1991). Instead, the Court emphasized that the school district was simply required to demonstrate its good faith commitment to the principles of desegregation. Id. This case has consistently followed the good faith standard enunciated by the Supreme Court. In 2002, when the District Court ruled that LRSD was unitary as to the majority of its desegregation obligations, the court went to great length to analyze the proper standard by which to judge the LRSD's compliance efforts. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The result of that analysis was the court's conclusion that the proper standard was \"substantial compliance.\" Id. at 1032-33. It went on to give a focused definition of that term as it would apply to the case. Id. at 1035-36. The court held: I am required to examine whether any of LRSD's failures to comply with the Revised Plan in the six challenged areas are \"serious enough\": ( 1) to constitute \"substantial noncompliance\"; and (2) \"to cast doubt\" on LRSD's \"future compliance with the constitution.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Id. It was this standard that the court went on to apply in holding that the LRSD was unitary as to all aspects of its desegregation plan, save one:  2.7.1. This Court adopted this standard and used it in reviewing the District Court's 2002 unitary status ruling. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Each section of that opinion analyzing the District Court's unitary holdings concludes with the statement that \"we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance.\" Id. It does not ' appear from this Court's 2004 opinion that the question of what standard applied to the LRSD's conduct was seriously doubted. To the extent that a different standard may have been urged, that request was rejected. See Id. at 965. Not quite two months after this Court handed down its March 2, 2004, opinion, the District Court issued the Memorandum Opinion at issue here regarding the LRSD' s efforts to substantially comply with  2. 7 .1 of its desegregation plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004). The District Court acknowledged the effect of this Court's March 2, 2004, opinion: \"Thus, all aspects of the September 13[, 2002,] Decision are now final and law of the case.\" Id. at 965. Accordingly, the \"substantial compliance\" standard laid down in 2002 became the law of the case. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Moreover, the District Court acknowledged that \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy.\" Id. at 984 ( emphasis added). Despite the District Court's recognition of the proper standard, it departed from that standard in one aspect of its 2004 memorandum opinion. The court held that the LRSD's \"comprehensive process for assessing  2.7 programs must become a deeply embedded part of LRSD's elementary and ' secondary curriculum.\" Id. at 985, 997. The court's desire to see that programs designed to improve the academic performance of AfricanAmerican children in the LRSD continue to be assessed and evaluated for effectiveness is certainly laudable and should be commended. LRSD, 2007 WL 624054 *7-8 fu. 43, 47. However, as the court recognized, that desire is not a basis to change the rule of law applicable to this case. As the District Court explained in its 2004 opinion, the law in this area, and in this case, did not require the LRSD to engage in heroic efforts to demonstrate its good faith; it required substantial compliance in good faith with the LRSD's desegregation plan. On appeal from the 2004 District Court decision, the majority opinion of this Court did not directly address the \"deeply embedded\" standard. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). Instead the majority stated \"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.\" Id. at 540-41. The majority then made clear that its affirmance of the \"even more heightened requirements\" of the 2004 compliance remedy was based on the LRSD's ongoing efforts to comply with that remedy. Id. The question of. the propriety of these requirements was specifically reserved for another day: \"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.\" Id. at 541. This precatory language certainly falls short of this Court having decided to depart from the good faith, substantial compliance standard and to adopt the \"deeply embedded\" standard. To hold that LRSD was required to satisfy the subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement would drastically alter the law governing the future progress of this case. As this Court is aware, two more school districts remain under the supervision of the District Court in this case. Recognition and affirmance of the good faith standard of substantial compliance with a 16 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I desegregation plan by this Court would ensure that no such departures from the long standing law would be imposed upon these two remaining districts. The 2006 affirmance of the District Court's 2004 compliance remedy was clearly premised on the time that had passed and the then ongoing efforts of the LRSD in complying with the 2004 remedy. If this Court were now to approve the 2004 departure from the long-standing law of this case, it would allow the District Court to alter the standards for compliance applicable to the two remaining districts. without prior notice to those districts and the opportunity to conform their actions to the newly announced expectations of the court as opposed to the settled law. The Joshua Intervenor's request that this Court sanction this shifting sands approach to this half-century old litigation should be soundly rejected. The State of Arkansas requests that the District Court's return to the settled law of this case be affirmed for the benefit of the future litigation of the unitary status of the two remaining districts. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the State of Arkansas, as Amicus Curiae, requests that this Court affirm the District Court's grant of complete unitary status to the Little Rock School District in its entirety. 17 I I Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL I Attorney General I By: /4-~ I Scott P. Richardson, Ark. Bar # 2001208 MatthewB.McCoy, Ark. Bar#2001165 I Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Ste 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 I (501) 682-1019 (501) 682-2591 fax scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov I ' Dennis R. Hansen I Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the State of I Arkansas. I I I I I I I I I 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing brief and one virus free diskette containing a copy of the brief have been served on the following via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this z~:ttay of November, 2007: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 024 21 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 /4--~ Scott P. Richardson 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the applicable parts of this brief comply with typevolume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7). The Brief contains 3,797 words and 355 lines of text. Pursuant to Local Rule 28A, Appellees hereby submit a 3 \" computer diskette to the Clerk and counsel for the principal parties. The brief was prepared in Microsoft Office Word 2003 using the proportionally spaced typeface Times New Roman in font size fourteen point. I, Scott P. Richardson, hereby certify that the diskettes presented to the Clerk and Appellant's counsel have been scanned for viruses and are virus free. Scott P. Richardson 20 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:35 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the :filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. 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 12/7/2007 at 4:34 PM CST and filed on 12/7/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Office of Desegregation Monitor WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document N um be_!: 4171 (No document attached) Docket Text: NOTICE of Filing 2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the PCSSD by Office of Desegregation Monitor (available in paper format only) (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirrnpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com - Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 12/10/2007 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/10/2007 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, 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 \"ECEJVED DEC 2 o 2in Office of Desegregation Monitoring vlll One Union National ~,., .. _ OFFICE OF 124 West Capitol, Suh,t!~ATION MONITOR/ Little Rock, AR 72201 NG 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 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 December 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc\u0026amp;~CEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 2 0 2007 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 December 2007. Respectfully Submitted, 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 I Cy-f--_-1:,)007, 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 Page 1 of 3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. 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 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsrnith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net 2/5/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcec:fStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/5/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of3 Page 1 of3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) rnhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/12/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/12/2008 Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Absc INTERVENOR/APPELLANTP 1 civc 0 v. DEc 2 o 2001 DESEG11/jf!lct OF ,7DN /,f O,JJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,;JTORJN(J APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) .I I .I, I I I I 'I I I I I I 1 I I I I Table of Contents Table of Contents ............ .. ..... .... ... .. ...... ...... ........................ .... .. ......... . Table of Authorities .......... .................... ... ........ ....... .... ... .. ... ............... . Argu1nent            oooo    \"                oo  OO    OO         \" The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Certificate of Service ... .... ............ ... ..... ......... ..... .... ..... ... .. ... ........ .... .. .... . Certificate of Compliance ... .... ........ ....... ...... ......... ... .... ............ ... ....... ... . Attachments i 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 12 14 I I ,, I ,, I I .I I I I , , I I I I 1 I I Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 FJd 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Tmstee v. Pictet Overseas Tmst Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (1 stCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 FJd 1 (1 stCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company. 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 9, 11 4 2 I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 I I I ., , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1 ; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the \"deeply embedded\" language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 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. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and re.mediate the academic achievement of African American students . .. . \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . . .. \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15 .2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of persom1el capable of perfonning assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and docmnents containing 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a tenn thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may detennine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I l1 completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable constmction of the parties' broa,d voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a stmcture to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instmction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its tenns. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2. 7 .1 was not constrained by any directive( s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a\" Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F .2d at 13 78-80. Rejecting mlings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: It is important for the settlement plans to be scmpulously adhered to -- and here 3 I I I I I I. I I I I I I, I I I I I I ( I I we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that the monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's mlings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992) (\"A  consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the mies generally applicable to otl1er judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, 111 a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court mled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1 , the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. 4 I. I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I I I I, As to 2. 7 .1 , the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be swmnarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2.7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80) [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001 , only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report ( at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7) [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079-80, para. 14) [ v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2. 7 .1 required the preparation of  evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10) Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88): [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a 5 I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available infonnation in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2. 7 .1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as constrned by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong tenns by this court in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' . bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a tennination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7. i. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] 6 I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I although, as LRSD's expert witness .testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearmg transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [470 F.Supp. at 971-72, 987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question  identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instmction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings inLRSD perfonnance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [470 F.Supp. 994]; [vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and mathscience evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 c01mnitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7 .1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"nm off\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no. part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43 . First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2.7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2.7 .1. See n.2, supra.3 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2. 7 .1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2. 7 .1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaul~s, comes straight from the broad 2. 7 .1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication, \"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, tl1e State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2. 7 .1. and invoked by tl1e District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia . Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA 4 Knight V. PCSSD, 11,2 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 5 5 (b )(2 ), F ed.R. Ci v .Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the trnth of any avennent' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him] .' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).\"; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) (opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union National Bank v. Pictet Overseas Tmst, 477 F.3d 616, 621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability oflaw of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what tl1e basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an infonned manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) ( whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a tennination of court jurisdiction. [470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing . . .. \" [4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, imanagement orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the hann. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony . . . and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e. , a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity . . .. \" First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element of Sec. 2.7.1 , fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain oflntervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2. 7 .1 ; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2. 7 .1 , for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a tennination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [ i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [ iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty\u0026lt;ruaol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Briefhas been served on this 18st day ofDecember, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24 .329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/or handdelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . ls/John W. Walker 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one vims free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file . Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I 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 December 6, 2006 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 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Counsel: As you know, this case is set for a hearing to commence on Monday, December 18, 2006. By noon this Friday, December 8, 2006, please fax me a list of your witnesses with a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony of each witness and the length of time you estimate for  direct examination. Please also carefully identify each exhibit that you intend to offer at the hearing by noon Friday, December 8. By noon Monday, December 11, 2006, each of you should fax me a letter with your estimated time of cross-examination for each adverse witness. We may have to work~ long day to complete the testimony. I understand that the media has reported a stir or two concerning some of th.e potential witnesses, and concerning one or more of the lawyers of record. If these media reports are accurate, pf e~e advise me in exact and plenary detail what part, if any, these stirs will play in the December 18 hearing. Include any new issues that you anticipate (this information should also be submitted by noon, this Friday). It is my understanding that Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Steve Quattlebaum, both of the Little Rock Bar, are representing some of the potential witnesses or other principals in the case. Both of these Page 1 of 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lawyers are on Judge Tom Ray's recusal list. In view of this I think it is likely that he will recuse in the immediate future -- assuming, of course, that any of the individuals these lawyers represent will play a part in the hearing. I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. P.S . No requests for extensions of the above deadlines, please. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Ms. Mary Johnson Other Counsel of Record Page 2 of 2 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW . -Document 4095 Filed 01/18/2007 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 (601) 604-5149 January 18, 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. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD ~- PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Counsel: . We will have a total of about 20 hours for the hearing, considering dinner (lunch) breaks, and a 15  minute break each morning and afternoon. -LRSD will have 7 hours to present its case. Joshua will have a total of2 hours for cross-examine of L_RSD's witnesses .. Joshua will have 7 hours to present its case. LRSD will have a total of 2 hours to cross-examine Joshua's witnesses. Cross-examination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy. You should be keenly aware of the time limits, lest evidence you deem important gets passed by. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson.Jr.  l/17?, Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:47 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response in Opposition to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:46 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4173 ( \"Po /'If~ h4 \\/\u0026lt;. clo C.1,1 W\\ C \") r Docket Text: RESPONSE in Opposition re [4141] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment, [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment filed by Lorene Joshua. (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=1062801- 0] [2c4a2e7112bb6558e0a14444d8175f6274883ca83101922b2eb8a45ff417b39196 1145745a839186c4571040330aba330e2abdbb6c616bd01284d06d3dd62049]] 1/8/2008 . . - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW  1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722ftE\"  TELEPHONE (501) 374-37580 CEIVEO FAX (501) 374-4.187 . . . EMAIL: jolmwalkera ttYri'.uaol.com  DEC 2 Q 200l l)oc.. l/l,'t JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS . OFCOUNSEI DESEG OFFICE OF ROBERT McHENRY. P.A REGATION MONITORJNr. . 8210 HENDERSON .ROAI Mr. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis; MO 63102 December 18, ] 007  . '!!!TILE ROCK, ARKA,'\\JSAS 722 1( PHONE: (501 ) 374-3425  FA.\"\\: (501) 372-3421 EMAIL: md1ear,\u0026lt;l;Z\u0026amp;,,wbd!.ne1 . ' Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School :District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Mt. Gans: Enclosed please find ten copies of Joshua Iritervenors ' Reply Brief along with the digital version brief on a 3. 5\" computer diskette in PDF format to be filed in the above matter. JWW:lp Enclosures cc:  All Counsel of Record I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Ab~c    INTERVENOR/APPELLANT~ 11 ,;1 c,vco 'EC E O 200 V. . 7 DESEG11oiff'CE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 7081108 '10/iJNq APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOIDNG Robert Pressman John W. Walker 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................... ................................ . Table of Authorities .................................... .. ..................................... . Argument .................................................. ....................... ................. . The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2.7.1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. F. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal 1 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 Certificate of Service .............. ....................................... ........................ 12 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachments i Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Trustee v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (lstCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (lstCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company, 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 10 9, 11 4 2 Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the II deeply embedded 11 language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. 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. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2. 7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students .... \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . ... \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15.2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers - and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of personnel capable of performing assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"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.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and documents containing completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable construction of the parties' broad voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a structure to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instruction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an hnplementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2.7.1 was not constrained by any directive(s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a \"Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F.2d at 1378-80. Rejecting rulings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: 3 It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that the monitoring is done eff ecti vel y, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's rulings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some - respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court ruled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1, the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 4 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. As to 2.7.1, the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2. 7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80] [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001, only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7] [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079- 80, para. 14] [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10] Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88]: [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare 5 and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available information in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2.7.1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as construed by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong terms by this court - in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a termination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7 .1. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its 6 obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] although, as LRSD's expert witness testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearing transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 971-72,987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [470 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings in LRSD performance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [ 4 70 F.Supp. 994]; [ vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and math-science evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always 7 identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 commitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2.7.1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7.1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"run off.\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43. First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2. 7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2. 7 .1. 8 See n.2, supra.3 Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2.7.1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaults, comes straight from the broad 2.7.1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication,\"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2. 7 .1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No - factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, the State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1. and invoked by the District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2.7.1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 4 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the truth of any averment' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him].' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).''; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) ( opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union NationalBankv. PictetOverseas Trust, 477 F.3d 616,621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability of law of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an informed manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 10 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a termination of court jurisdiction. [ 470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing .... \" [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, \"management orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the harm. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony ... and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 11 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity .... \"First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element - of Sec. 2.7.1, fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain of Intervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2.7.1; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2.7.1, for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a termination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. 12 Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, /s/.Tohn W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief has been served on this 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/orhanddelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. ls/John W. Walker 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A(c), that this Reply Brief (exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9.0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Format). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file. Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1:miec E' ivE 0 TELEPHONE (501) 374_375f1'E,;, . FAX (501) 374-4187 EMAIL: johnwalkeratt1'1i:vaol.com DEC 2 G 2007 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS l\\llr. Michael Shay United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 December 20, 2007 OFFICE OF OF COUNS DESEGREGATION MONITORINIRoBERT McHENRY, P 8210 HENDERSON RO LITTLE ROCK, .-\\RK.4..\u0026lt;\"\\/SAS 72: PHONE: (501) 374-3425  FA,'{ (501) 372a3 EMAIL: mchenr,1.1hswbdl Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Ivlr. Shay: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, enclosed you will find the original pages 13, 14, and 15 with Mr. Walker's signature. By copy of this letter, I am also providing all counsel listed on the Certificate of Service with these pages. If there are any additional corrections which need to be made, please advise. Sincerely, /\\ .Y  l ....-2 r7'1[!l0,1 o~v~ YsiL6raPowell Secretary to John W. Walker LP: Enclosures 13 . Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty(a)aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief was served on the 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 18 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to .Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of cotmsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using W ordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The tmdersigned has provided -one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all cotmsel of record: The digital version of this briefhas been famished on a 3.5\" computer diskette - in Portable Docmnent Fonnat (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDE from the original word processing file . Dated: December 20, 2007 15 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:57 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Opposition This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:56 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4174 Docket Text: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Lorene Joshua re [4145] Brief in Support (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 . ' . . Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalk:eratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=l062865- 0] [65977f3b2c5e2ab4a9418b842718fd4c5295:f29ef9e7ef3b12d48014f6ad014540 aead3a02061f86aal 1564a5f02afl 7570a3601c799a30116bc81d2c7b02225]] 1/8/2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Poe. 'i 115 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, for its response to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, states: 1. Dr. Donna Humpries, a member of PACT, has pending an individual Title VII and 14th Amendment claim against Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in Humphries v. PCSSD, E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:06 CV-00606. Likewise, Ms. Norma Dixon, a noncertified employee of PCS SD, has pending an individual Title VII claim against PCS SD. Both are represented herein by PACT and other named class representatives. [Dkt. 1179] 2. Dr. Humphries alleges PCS SD has preferentially hired and promoted minority applicants for elementary administrative positions since at least 2001. The statistical evidence in support of her allegation is overwhelming.. See, Employment Analysis of Elementary School Assistant Principals in the Pulaski County Special School District (report of plaintiffs Page 1 of 5 3. expert, Dr. David Sharp), Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, in 4:06cv00606. In its motion for release from court supervision, PCS SD cites the very statistic which tends to prove racial bias in hiring and promotion relative to Dr. Humphries' case. Specifically, PCS SD informs the court that over fifty-two percent of its school based administrators are black. Brief in Support of PCSSD'S Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, at 5, (\"Brief, \"hereafter). Unfortunately, PCS SD fails to report to the court that only 21 % of the relevant labor pool of certified teachers for those positions is black, and therefore, it has reached this 52% level by methods that imply a further violation of the 14th Amendment. It is so far undisputed that PCS SD hires or promotes black applicants to elementary assistant principal positions at a rate from 2. 8 to 3 .2 standard deviations above what is expected based upon the relevant labor pool of certified teachers. See, Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, Case No. 4:06cv00606. No similar detailed analyses of junior high school and high school hires and promotions have been performed because of restrictions placed on discovery by the court in Humphries case. In Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), the court holds that hiring or promoting one race at rates two or three standard deviations above the expected rate for that race is sufficient to establish that race was a factor in the hiring or promotion process for those positions. 4. Nevertheless, citing the racial composition of its certified administrative staff, PCSSD asserts that it is \"in compliance with\" a constitutional standard for ''Faculty and Administrative Assignments,\" citing Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). Brief at4-5, andfn. 8. For many years, PCSSD had met the legitimate racial diversity goals required by the court - i.e. nearly every certified Page 2 of 5 employee category reflected the relevant labor pool, - and thus, a phase of enhanced hiring and promotion of minorities was not required or contemplated by the court's approval of PCSSD's desegregation plans from 1987 forward. See, LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F.Supp. 363, 369 (E.D.Ark. 1987)(\"Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful although there remain underrepresentation in two specific categories: coordinators and directors .... The percentage of black administrators (24. 7%) is good and indicates a positive step toward curing this deficiency.\" Id.). By adoption of Plan 2000, PCS SD administration did reflect the labor pool - roughly 21 % of its administrators were black, and 21 % of certified teachers in the area were black. The same basic labor pool exists today, but 52.9% of administrators in PCSSD are black. At least in elementary schools, the statistics meet the legal standard for a prima facie case ofrace discrimination against white applicants for those jobs. How does this apparent race discrimination in employment affect the desegregation efforts of the three districts? We do not hazard a guess, nor is it PACT' s duty to analyze that question. However, these very considerations - the racial composition of PCSSD's employees - were a major component of the evidence which Judge Woods focused on when he made the original liability finding in this case. 5. PACT's concern on behalf of Dr. Humphries, is that PCSSD is seeking implicit or explicit court approval of the recent (2000-2006) hiring and promotions which resulted in the school's administration rising from 20% black to 52% black as if that rate of hiring of black administrators was related to a legitimate remaining remedial obligation in this case. Our concern is further heightened by the fact that PCS SD made no similar mention in its motion for unitary status that about 21% of its teachers are minority, and that about 21% of new Page 3 of 5 hires each year are black. Those statistics comport with the relevant labor pool percentages, but garnered no special mention for possible mention by this court when assessing PCS SD' s progress. 6. Whether the race discrimination now evident in PCSSD's employment of certified administrators will alter the court's opinion on unitary status, PACT urges the court to make an explicit exclusion of the district's administrative hiring and promotion process in any ruling on PCSSD's pending motion. If the court finds the issues raised herein need to be addressed in the hearing on the pending motion, PACT stands prepared to present that evidence for the court's benefit. 7. Ms. Dixon's employment claim arises out of her pursuit of a buyer position in the business department of PCS SD. On information and belief, that department has never hired a black buyer and all upper management positions in that department are filled by whites. WHEREFORE, PACT prays any order issued on PCS SD' spending motion for unitary status make explicit exclusion of the issues ofracial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in Humphries v. PCSSD, Case No. 4:06 CV-00606 (E.D. Ark.) and Dixon v. PCSSD, Case No. 4-07-cv- 01119 (E.D.Ark). Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 4 of 5 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following, postage prepaid, and filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, this 21st day of December, 2007: Mr. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates, Woodyard, PLLC 425 West Capitol Ave. Ste.1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:43 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 12/21/2007 at 2:42 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4175 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/21/2007] [FileNumber=1063977- 0] [6eeelb572383b02aa3b59dde83a32470fef7c66e2684100df9c47bc82e187b9ec9 a17dfd4938fe363ade679760fd69221e663289e4f47612309d62063ed2041b]] 1/8/2008 J)oc f/7? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EAS'Ji'S,DiSTRICTCOURT RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Mr. Stephen W. Jones 500 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 0444 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 21, 2007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway DEC 21 2007 JAMES ~RMAC~CLERK By: ~~~ OFFICE: (501) efii.fil'l:QileRK FAX: (501) 6045149 Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District, et al v. Pulaski Cotmty School District, et al 4:82-CV-00866-WRW Dear Counsel: I'm strongly disinclined to have a hearing on your motions to declare your Districts unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the Little Rock School District case. As you know, Joshua Jnterveners are challenging the compliance standard I used during the last hearing. Until this issue is resolved by the Eighth Circuit, it seems to me that it would be ill-advised to conduct extensive, expensive hearings on your requests. While I've still got my mind charged with this issue, I anticipate that I will soon enter an order along the lines suggested above. Original: cc: Cordially, [t{/{MJJIL Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. /4r. James W. McCmmack, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Thomas Ray The Honorable Andre-e Roaf MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a-res sage-Id : \u0026lt;1063998@ared . uscourts -. gov\u0026gt; ~ cc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock Schoome.tr.ae Pulaski Cty School , et al Order n C  fl/ED Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicia ~elf'e f the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electrc[j},F.5a2J-~ , ?Rlf7 receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees ~'ffl]ly to all other users. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each docurr#~cEBJuring this first viewing . U. S . District Court DESEGREGATION F Eastern District of. Arkansas MDNITORJNG Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/21/2007 2:55 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4:82-cv-866 https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4176 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : Document: https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/docl/02701103404?magic_num=MAGIC\u0026amp;de_seq_num=200582 9\u0026amp;caseid=26052 Docket Text: A LETTER/ ORDER the Court is strongly disinclined to have a hearing on Motions W,to Declare Districts Unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the LRSD case. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson , Jr on 12 /21/07 . (d    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_1773","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, memorandum of authority, and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Middle schools","Maumelle Middle School (Maumelle, Ark.)","School enrollment","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, memorandum of authority, and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion."],"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/1773"],"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":["22 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, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion; District Court, memorandum of authority; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion; District Court, order; District Court, correction of order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, 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.    ARKAN SAS DEPARTM ENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner --Edacati1fn-4 State.Capitol Mall----- Little Rock,.AR. 72201,.107-1 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org October 31, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 NOV 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF IISmRWT~ Mmfil11f!1mllE Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West_ Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JieR 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 Marylane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED NOV 2- 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS Off.lttf ~ Mimmmmtm DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2007 eas'$1tmt@!imorma]on:avaiIrortr~gtemtrei?,S.oE2o_ogi ttretA0 EtcaI\u0026amp;uIatec1ntm s:tatelfilJllnclaWJ=~orlj.YIOw.mno1m1tomeri iro'Kcsiaiwwt 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. UNITED STATES bISTR.l:Ct 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 October 2007. Respectfully Submitted, mith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 .,._  I .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on October 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. 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 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:48 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the fded 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 11/1/2007 at 4:48 PM CDT and filed on 11/1/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4161 Docket Text: NOTICE OF FILING ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 2/5/2008 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/1/2007] [FileNumber=1031013-0 ] [2cla69filbc1165b8dcc0d02314a461bfcdb71a68d13811829e3b632229fd4b6858 be2e704b6d8ffl 428416598efil6896ef5929dl 132deb3bd453958975e7eb6]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4161 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Exhibits Attached to Original  Document in Courts 's Case File Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4:82CV00866-WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the court to enter an order directing the Office - of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to review the Pulaski County Special School District student assignment plan and to make other reviews as may be necessary to determine the extent to which the PCSSD has complied with the prior orders of this court. On October 22, 2007, undersigned counsel informed the court of the PCS SD' s plans to build a replacement secondary facility in the Maumelle community. At that time, counsel brought to the court's attention that the proposed new facility may advantage certain students of higher socio economic level and disadvantage those, largely African American students, oflower socio economic status. Joshua also brought to the court's attention that the PCSSD appears to be in the process of recreating separate schools which may be largely unequal in terms of physical facilities, at the least, and that in order for the court to access this process, independently, the ODM should be requested to make inquiry into the subject. On October 29, 2007, the PCS SD filed a motion for unitary status. In that motion the district Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 3 asserts that it has substantially complied with existing orders of the court and the Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit has directed the creation and utilization of the ODM in order to make appropriate and pertinent inquiries and to otherwise monitor compliance with respect to the commitments that the district has made in order to fully eliminate all vestiges of racial discrimination from the school system. The district has made its filing in part because it was induced, if not directed, by the Arkansas Legislature to seek unitary status. Whether the district is unitary is a judicial determination to be made upon consideration of any reports regarding the subject by the ODM and the evidence that it otherwise submitted by the parties regarding the subject. Joshua's earlier request for ODM monitoring and a report thereon is appropriate and will be helpful to the court when the court undertakes hearings on the subject. The primary monitor approved by the Court of Appeals, which has consistently been financed - by the defendant school districts and the State of Arkansas, is the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Joshua submits that it is appropriate before this subject is heard by the court that the ODM review all aspects of the existing plans of the PCS SD and all of its school operations including comparative quality of facilities and make a monitoring report to the court in advance of such hearing. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to direct the ODM to enter an overall appraisal pursuant to a comprehensive monitoring undertaking of the extent of compliance by the PCSSD which the existing plans of the district and that it include within such report a valuation and relative quality assessment of all of the facilities within the Pulaski County School District where students attend its schools. Respectfully submitted, .. . . \"\" Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 3 Robert Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tel: (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 By: ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that on this 17lh day of November, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/16/2007 at 1 :55 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4162 Docket Text: MOTION for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 2/12/2008 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040037- 0] [54a0bc539b60990a46a8b7ec6e2202ff0c738518f338620f9e5f1329b2e70ec947 c77e21e7848fcaf09be2bb85436db8e90ceab27fd67c787101d47227eace75]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4163 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4:82CV00866-WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The authority for the requested relief as set forth in the motion is found at Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Sp. S., 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals and the district court have repeatedly recognized the authority, responsibility and duty of the ODM to monitor the plans of the parties as well as the actions of the State of Arkansas. The request being made by the Joshua Intervenors is made pursuant to that authority. The public interest will be served by the requested monitoring in advance of any judicial proceedings. Robert Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER,P.A Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tel: (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 By: ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 . ...... . ,, ...... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4163 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that on this 17th day of November, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/ John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:03 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/16/2007 at 2:03 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4163 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua re [4162] Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 2/12/2008 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original fdename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040061- 0] [a77d50fb0f3d54f353e9ab6e795403d30480761abbb4dc8c913ce1369cf26e8128 9f7c3a8d6c86655940c36005af7cbe76ee40139e2fe8ab148ca7baa008b410]] 2/12/2008 ;i1aACJ'U..,...  ~'j,L, c..,= Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. On this day, November 16, 2007, Joshua filed a confusing \"motion\" that alternately seems to address the PCSSD's Motion for Unitary Status which was filed on October - 29, 2007, its plans to acquire a new location for Oak Grove High School next to Mamelle Middle School and a fairly rambling recitation of Joshua's view of the current role of the ODM and a request that the ODM evaluate PCSSD's plan compliance and facilities needs. 2. For the reasons set forth below, and because time is of the essence, this response primarily addresses that part of the Joshua motion, primarily. the second paragraph of the motion, regarding a replacement location for the antiquated Oak Grove High School. 3. The PCSSD will separately address other aspects of the Joshua motion in a separate response but in a timely fashion. A Brief History of the Current PCSSD Plan 4. Under previous incarnations of the PCS SD desegregation plans, fairly elaborate rules and tests applied to the selection of new school sites and court approval was specifically - required. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 41.6 4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 12 5. At the behest of the then presiding District Court Judge, the PCS SD jettisoned its cumbersome and comprehensive plan originally dating from 1992 and the PCSSD and Joshua negotiated a new plan, commonly known as Plan 2000. 6. Joshua and the PCSSD jointly presented the Plan for Court approval and it was duly approved and went into effect during 2000. 7. Many of the previous requirements were removed from the Plan. For instance, there is no longer any section regarding site requirements or court approval for new schools. Rather, the Plan simply states: H. School Facilities (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua Intervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua Intervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal. The Status of the Cunent Maumelle Site 8. The Maumelle School site was selected by a bi-racial committee of patrons from the affected areas and the vote of that committee was unanimous to select the site next door to the current Maumelle Middle School as a replacement for the ancient Oak Grove High School. 9. Pursuant to Plan 2000, counsel for Joshua was duly notified on September 7, 2007. (See Exhibit A). Accordingly, it was the PCSSD which informed the Court on September 7, 2007, of its plans to acquire the Maumelle site for the new Oak Grove High School. Joshua's cu1Tent assertion that it was Joshua which so notified the Court on October 22, 2007, is erroneous and the date of Joshua's letter does not comply with the time constraints mentioned and agreed to in Plan 2000. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 12 1 O. . Joshua is asking the Court to order the ODM to study this site. It is respectfully submitted that the purpose of the ODM is to monitor Plan compliance. It cannot be disputed that PCS SD complied with the Plan by formally advising Joshua of the site selected. 11. A copy of the letter from counsel for Joshua dated October 22, 2007, is attached as Exhibit B. The Jacksonville issue referred to in the letter arises from legislation passed in the most recent legislative session which might result in a proposal to create a new Jacksonville School District. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the plans for a new school in Maumelle. 12. As we explained in our initial letter, the entire student body for the new Maumelle school would matriculate from the Maumelle Middle School which draws its students from the Oak Grove area, M-to-M transfer students from Litt!~ Rock and Maumelle which is rapidly increasing its black population. Indeed, the current enrollment for Maumelle Middle School is approximately 44% African American. 13. Accordingly, there is no burden issue to study or discuss. Oak Grove, Maumelle and transfer students from Little Rock are simply not involved in any shape, form or fashion in the calculous that may or may not lead to a Jacksonville School District, as contended in Joshua's letter of October 22, 2007. 14. The Oak Grove community is on the west side of Camp Robinson which forms a land barrier between that northwestern part of the PCS SD and the northwestern part which commences in the Gravel Ridge/Sherwood area and extends on over into Jacksonville. . f 15. The status of Oak Grove High School has previously been assessed both by the State and the PCSSD's own studies. Each study has concluded that it should be closed and a new school built. Again, in the final analysis, the question should be: \"What does Plan 2000 require?\" It requires notice to Joshua. Notice was duly given on September 7, 2007. 45 days 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 12 passed before Joshua commented; the 14 days for comments specified in Plan 2000 expired not later than September 21 , 2007. Indeed, the Maumelle Middle School, from which this new school would draw its students, was not opposed by Joshua when it was selected and built several years ago. The schools would simply now be beside each other. The Current Status ~f the Property Acquisition 16. On November 15, 2007, the PCSSD received notification pursuant to the purchase contract that the sellers were invoking their right to close the Maumelle property transaction on or before December 15, 2007. Accordingly, time is of the essence. 17. This response is accompanied by a Memorandum Brief which more fully explains the PCSSD position. The PCSDD requests that a decision be accelerated by this Court denying the Joshua motion insofar as it seeks to block or delay the acquisition of the site for a new Maumelle High School which would serve a student body which is approximately 44% African American. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court declaring that deciding and , selecting new school sites in the PCSSD, absent possible extraordinary circumstances which do not exist here and are not alleged here, are no longer subject to the scrutiny and micromanagement of this Court or of the ODM, and that the PCSSD is free to complete an orderly site selection process. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E~mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 12 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.eom  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williarnsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.11et1paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ,agcivil@arkansasag.gov ,danielle. williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,1orap72297@aol.com.,jspringer@gabrielmail.com 5 I ,I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 12 . ' . / I certify that on November 16, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School D,i stric' t MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT A Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 - J LAW OFFICES Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 12 . } MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M, SAMUEi. JONES, Ill DIREC't' PIAI.I sot C181-811 t 2 11:.,.MAILI a.JONll:8@MWSAW,COM VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: PCSSD FaciHties Dear John: LITTLE ROCK  ROGERS September 7, 2007 429 Wll!\"aT CAP'ITOL AVCHUlt Bun t aoo UTTLIC FIOCK1 ARICA.HWA  7220t-382.1S Tl!Ll:~HONa: 801 888,.8800 FM BO 1-8888807 It is my understanding that the PCSSD has placed under contract 60.406 acres adjacent to the current Maumelle Middle School for the likely construction of a high school to replace the cunent Oak Grove High School facility. I say \"likely\" because the District is currently conducting the appropriate studies to confirm the suitability of the site for school construction. Pursuant to Section H-3 of Plan 2000 l am submitting this letter to give you the infonnation Plan 2000 requires, The facility, if constructed, would simply be the high school for the current Maumelle Middle School and its student body. You will recall that the Maumelle Middle School was constructed several years ago to replace Oak Grove Junior High School. There would be no proposed changes in geo codes or assignment areas to my knowledge. Stated another way, the new high school would serve the identical area currently served by the old Oak Grove High School and the same students who currently matriculate rrom Maumelle Middle School to Oak Grove High School would instead attend a new high school next door to them. Cas~ 4:82-cv-00866=W,RW Document 4164 Filed 1}1\\612007 Page 9 of 12 a MITCHELL WILLIAMS W, SELIG GATES WOODYARD PLLC Mr. John Walker September 7, 2007 . Page2 Since no geo codes would be affected and the \"area\" would remain the same, the re location of the school should not have any impact on the racial makeup of the new high school or any of the feeder schools. I do not yet know if \"capacity\" has been studied or detennined. I am confident it will be sufficient to serve the existing student ~ody and it may be planned for some anticipated growth as well. Early next week I intend to ask for arid furnish to you copies of the actual contracts . including legal descriptions of the property and I wiJl ask about capacity and furnish any additional infonnation to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. MSJ:ao cc: Honorable William R. Wilson Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. James Sharpe Dr. Brenda Bowles Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . . Samuel Jones, Ill Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 12 EXHIBITB QCT.22,2007 10:38AM JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 JOHN W. WAUUJR SHAWN CHILDS Mr. M Samuel Jones Mitchell Williams 425 Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: PCSSl\u0026gt; Dear Sam: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'rJ'OP.NEY Arr LAW 1728 BMADWAY LlTTLB nooK, ARKANBAfl 72206 TE:LEPHONB (501) 874-3758 FAX (501) 874-4187 Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com October 22, 2007 N0.393 P.2 Page 11 of 12 OPOOUNSEL !'!.OBERT McHENR'fi,F.A, DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HiNlllill$0tl ROAD LrrTU!: ROCI$. ARlCANSAS 'ra310 PRON\u0026amp;: ceot) S'lll-3426  PAX (601) 372,8428 Elllllll: mehen:yd@lswbell.net l write to oppose location of the proposed school in the Maumelle community. There are at least two reasons for Joshua's opposition. First. there is a pending proposal for deannexation of tenitory from PCSSD relating to the Jacksonville effort. There has not been an impact study or any other writing prepared regarding Jacksonville's possible, if not likely, withdrawal. Nor has there been a study to assess the burdens upon African American students who will still need a place to attend school. Will the proposed school increase travel times beyond the Sffl Circuit limit? What benefits will flow to all Afiican American students from the site_ i. e.,, is it an educationally sound or financial feasible plan. Second. PCSSD represents that it is on the verge of financial calamity. Where then or how will this matter be financed? And in face of the declining quality of e\u0026gt;ther schools in poorer, more African American communities in PCSSD, what would be the relative physical equality between the schools. I can not approve the Taj Malull approach for the schools planned for Chenal and Maumelle while the other schools are left \"separate and unequal.\" Not even~ would condone that. Finally, in view of the district's diSDlBl record with meeting its agreed upon desegregation obligations, I, by copy of this letter, request that the ODM make an appraisal of your plans before you go further. There is no motion pending. Accordingly. like you. I copy the Court. 10/22/2007 MON 11:08 [TX/RX NO 5126) ~002 OCT.22.2007 10:39AM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.393 P.3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 12 JWW:js co: Judge Andre Roa( Office of Desegregation Monitoring Honorable Judge William \"Bill\" Wilson 10/22/2007 MON 11: 08 [TX/RX NO 5126 J ~ 003 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 3:48 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 11/16/2007 at 3:48 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 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: 4164 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4162] MOTION for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans filed by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040280- 0] [ 43c60fl 4 f20a88b061 0e3fc3b6a621dce2ad2aff846373c8be0a883b40695ec2b9 72e4494ca50494a907605acf92d943a797cf312318914a541b0f0b132ecc82]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This response incorporates Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent declaratory relief might be appropriate under these circumstances. Indeed, as explained in the PCSSD respon~e\\o the Joshua motion, on November 15, 2007, the PCSSD was informed by the sellers of the Maumelle property that they were exercising their right to schedule closing which they have now done specifying that closing should occur on or before December 15, 2007. Hence, the PCSSD is replying to the untimely Joshua motion on the day it was received. Contrary to the assertions of Joshua, ODM review and participation is not required under current circumstances. While it is absolutely true that the ODM is to monitor compliance with the parties' desegregation plans, there is nothing to \"monitor\" here beyond the simple question of did the PCS SD provide the notice of its school construction and site acquisition plans as required - by Plan 2000? The answer is clearly \"yes\" and is answered by the PCSSD letter to Joshua dated ., ' September 7, 2007, copies of which were mailed to the Comt and to the ODM. Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 1111612007 Page 2 of 4 - acknowledges that it did not respond or \"comment\" until October 22, 2007, or far beyond the 14 day \"window\" for comment the parties agreed to in Plan 2000. Indeed, on October 25, 2007, the Court by letter directed Joshua to file a motion if it wished to pursue this matter. While this Court acted within three days, Joshua delayed another 22 days before serving a motion that, given its content concerning the site issue, could have been prepared and served by October 26, 2007. Accordingly, it is respectfully submittec,. l that.the Court should summarily and ' expeditiously enter its order denying at least that portion of Joshua's motion dated November 16, 2007, which would in any way delay the orderly process and the closing now scheduled for the new Maumelle school site which will host students currently attending Oak Grove High School. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. ~~uel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 r Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Comt using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.com  Christopher J, Heller , heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W, Jones sjones@j Ij .com,linda.calloway@j lj .com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com 3 .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 4 I certify that on November 16, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Pqstal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WtjstCapitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Littl~ Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com ; I 4 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 3:52 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 11/16/2007 at 3:51 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 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: 4165 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Pulaski County Special School District re [4164] Response to Motion (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=ll/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040298- 0] [9975d85bb0bb56dd7036917b51541907475265f5252ebc71a4afd66ef56387ea8b b5al725fdb847645485e450e017f42120b153c45defdc50b065a14cdd8c067]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4166 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 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. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Joshua's Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plan (Doc. No. 4162) has been carefully reviewed, and is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day ofNovember, 2007. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion for Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 11/16/2007 at 4: 17 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4166 Docket Text: ORDER denying [4162] Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plan. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/16/07. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 2/12/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040407- 0] [00b62beb01e411a5c248clla289b93447clb58a6145cf85d7875f7ed062ea7d27a blfdlf0e07f249f867e9727714633d8522blf04690a724d157895426299627]] 2/12/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4168 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY 1rITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 500 West Capitol, Suite 0444 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 November 19, 2007 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HE:-IDERSON ROAD LITIU: ROCK, ARKA.~SAS 72210 PHo:,iE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV822 Dear Judge Wilson: My letter/motion to you dated October 5, 2007 contai11ed an error regarding Joshua's response time to NLRSD's Petition dated September 21, 2007. This request should have been until December 20, 2007 rather than November 20, 2007. See page 15 ofNLRSD's brief May the Court's order of October 25, 2007 be amended to reflect December 20, 2007 as the due date ofJoshua's resposne? Thank you for your consideration. JWW:js cc: Other Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscou rts.gov Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:40 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 Extend Time This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/19/2007 at 9:40 AM CST and filed on 11/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4168 Docket Text: MOTION to Extend Time For Response to NLRSD's Petition for Declaration of Unitary Status and Release from Court Supervision by Lorene Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/19/2007] [FileNumber=1040773- 0] [436ee87e1261b6e599e7393c50e7a0e7ab7a4f8a282951calc6eb4fd268a693631 al 4b7fl 6099d93 8d3c64936c65694bf6691 c0ec241aaaf6884eddfe9750620]] 2/12/2008 . ,, Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:30 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion to Extend Time This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents ftled electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. 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 11/19/2007 at 10:29 AM CST and filed on 11/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4169(No document attached) Docket Text: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting [4168] Joshua's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Response. Accordingly, Joshua's response must be filed by 5 p.m., Thursday, December 20, 2007. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/19/07. (dmm) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 11/19/2007 Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com - John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 11/19/2007 Page 2 of2 l(Je, '/170 ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Or. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org November 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. 1 723 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 RECE VEIJ NOV~ 2007 OFF/Cf 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. 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 November 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Siu;iiA ~~:1mith 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 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 November 2007. Respectfully Submitted, 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 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. 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 REC IVED NOV 3 O 2007 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 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  . . . .:ducation (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. -  1MPLEMENTATION 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, 2007 ff B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Page 1 of3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. 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 11/28/2007 at 2:55 PM CST and filed on 11/28/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4170 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing by Arkansas Department of Education of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2007.(mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) rnhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/28/2007] [FileNumber=1047366- 2/12/2008 0] [2ee7c37470f73a48aa9412a4ca14ae7496c4a9bc5a49d9e8f3a0016a088b93c22d e68b7ca7265aecae26alb8ba299eec5089d09c03013f9f31fdd94a1561aee3]] 2/12/2008 Page 3 of 3    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1783","title":"Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration","School boards","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1783"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["48 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, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, brief in support of petition for declaration of North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcripts for January 20-21, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcript for January 27, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN-THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 1,-\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;/,  11 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial respcmse to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. ExhibitC 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 4 From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:37 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 1:34 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4141 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-0 ] [7408cdf9227856d4a2dc8c5472dba34f9701c196844fa005057a3efc58191153622 37392e63ee5c0cb5a9e62035a723d9af46c5f2c4eccee1665780a45123d4c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-1 ] [add65045e0898ea243flb786e3750c22c95d32b3ce2bd77f30813cf53e4d58054bf 14d5b83c5e198ad04dfb23253abed52e83dab079cab80be76e5198b8ad18d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-2 ] [4fa6ae63a4929c8fb7561a2b6d74767b9a891424ab463c461e4a4ba4a100cl96b3d 0b89bf7b7d3570ed154641dlf6d30fe0d43e3ebl5420aaa5711a75682a2b5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-3 ][39a2dflef684ce586aa3449d7ffc216a27556ea4c9f9454b846bb793cbd7e75a3e5 19e7639lca55b8df6e14c1804c67cd0e73aaa3d3e6694148c4bfDb5b51881]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-4 ] [ 483fD2ff 41f4b801869bd585e93dea4ebfl dfcfab89200f dbce28a0dd42b95642ca f725f5f82a09b252023e3f96c64581ddff34d816104d62803clc75697787b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-5 ] [afa73fb3c6c36449d6d596473611b6b5e69b07c792b7546e8f7baefdb225ada8dcb 4dfD17bla438468adf88fc23b6ecc62bd245043bb375a2120c23256d9822c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-6 ] [67b96710d57dda80ed2558bfD99baa8b7cfd55d01a627ac3bde559f885d50cc3137 20c518ee8ef9ebeedf926e056726cec42f4d144163ee0a294cb2b36ded68b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001129-7 ][6b590142c2bad10dad3710152f2c57fd4a7e86bc75eb7db6960b93b6a5247f73895 8b2fc206844b081cb5b88130c15ceaeab2e29fd3ffc74367c3bf638b4ab04]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-8 ] [a9baflb89925eab70001 ldfd31c4f5eae772f6a91faad2c9895a946e28884ff5c8a aec33f8e92abd550ee8465ad02337e7af30d0079c5c4dede2178436a9c6bd]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-9 ] [949adb7d003686a90e6373fb8a7895cf6e9c356fc2e412153f9b00e570f779b5bfb 43a4a93551ba60569fc04dd61de206ef9e7e044186d28038691e6c158c58e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-1 0] [0c7074833849c92f394ef3be8b183f2aea0b603e3a8e58dfebc71f3f520ca9e2ab aadcbc844d6bb9fe5105a81cla978b84e4ab781c51a0d7340ald7027206f6b]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 1] [45cf816fd0fc42e8457aa07c80161bec62c4a4888dc093bb76cb5393cll523d42e 3de6a879d701b37c29b62616076203b3446f7d931e5520de660feddc539925]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 2] [65D981f8e397de82dc932055d5e2a3d408bae0dab8dlc6336bce88539d876d2b2 f220bb2dc7500d4f31d04e55e985ae533b3efad5bf50f8d79fcflealflcf7c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 3] [lc9a9ea337f42743da3e3ffa9a093a8c93ceelfd47fcd4559df85d149ea6dd74d0 a7213f691ald5e00959f52ae08713d748966114f94413ccbe837cd021d05d3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 4] [657ce428ce6d5ba36593balfd68a40552f16a0d76fcffe4cc2d8878312b5de6634 76d017ca4bfb63b9b2433d98614ec6b91d9cb697fdlbed0de37e8cb62ec0e3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 5] [055ba6e0ccc26fc3be93t2a6fa4673b19d156b2d0e927d409ac93d5aeb63cc3483 583d3977f6a32a8cef777dab0d24f6d5dee64f8682dd401c8d97de66ed8fd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 6] [50885f5ca447559c0a9cae054e6405259ce5fb7ab917bfc395d3d807457cced78e 3c2f213a808184064ca0870bcba02723e3cblc2f454951c9d2c692dedbbdd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 7] [2a5553ddf0a6154f8Dd0115d60d0eff8bfdb25f8dc4a102876450950074b190cb b6c3d4b10bb6cceec938eldd4ad384e21fbl541cea47f32db2bl206ad3clbl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 8] [78f7d4ca3flc2726b65932f02ce8ce000205f501793454e4d95e4350a5936b95a6 fcf38f2411312cb5e06c613a8a46003822ae2bde399af9e927337ba2d8036d]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages J. Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 64 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 104 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages I.a Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 100 pages 22 Exhibit 100 pages 23 Exhibit 100 pages 24 Exhibit 49 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4142,26052,,30254580,,,2005729 9/21/2007 TestSystemN ame Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages z Exhibit 100 pages l Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages _5_ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 185 pages _8_ Exhibit 65 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 1.5- Exhibit 98 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages 1.8- Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 103 pages https:/ /ecf.ared. uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4143 ,26052,,8671824,,,2005732 9/21/2007 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages ~ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 67 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages ll Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages ., .li  Exhibit 115 pages 16 Exhibit 115 pages 17 Exhibit 193 pages ll Exhibit 95 pages 19 Exhibit 43 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4144,26052,,70913858,,,2005734 9/21/2007 .l. \\,,,~UJ] .\u0026gt;L\\.lllll '4a.J.llC .l a 0 \\,, .l V.l .l Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 7 pages 1 Exhibit 95 pages  Exhibit 70 pages .5. Exhibit 70 pages Q Exhibit 140 pages 1 Exhibit 75 pages ~ Exhibit 65 pages .2 Exhibit 140 pages 10 Exhibit 140 pages 11 Exhibit 85 pages - 12 Exhibit 77 pages u Exhibit. 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages u , Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 84 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?414 l ,26052,, 13 l 19253,,,2005727 9/21/2007 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :02 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 5 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:00 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4142 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit # (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit # (20) Exhibit # (21) Exhibit# (22) Exhibit# (23) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net - M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001182-0 ] [732ecb4e283771f778564bfdfdaba72c41 ldb5db5ad867ce5cbfb4bb71cfld0cc42 17f8dde1614980169fc7b34elf67c5ffila56c0467cd98f14dd7e75b981197]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 ] [ 6f9c24 78d4c3df70508774307b4010a45a47b89c0cc85d5eadf2ac7fl b0bc604 fe4 0c020e693df3dc764bc8cb86c5f2d2e0e728575ceb96ea79f3df21 e5b31 c0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 ] [76732e579983296a6340231f503219d4ac141a2dald2a94945b376b60b6d5be6761 efl 90defdf3e769d6bbaa40a9926672fdb0d997eaf838211 0c3e24d21 c9db]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-3 ] [ld175534371577d523d2626dd635776ba266f838901b2cc128a6911c9de8da0a7f7 8187d3027d549a4622d91945c646d37b9a77d9d40ba4460b63ebc066c9035]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-4 ] [98b2d2f432198e182449f7964994f5d993e7e34423a14ce63120f234c0bcb8b96aa ba09c25c95824fd2c710052d1867fb2d11251ac629ed5ef959002df2c247f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-5 ] [10b40a910f93f085227ead52fc6ae334bd81a4f4d67cbd2fb9c2ea938de1479e008 0505308e7b99b43fa8243a6bd52334b87756277e9blce8cc8f6717ab6100b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-6 ] [91846b38blafe013ea17b63baaelfe837a2dlllff4648b881768568e257b9bbea7f 103fcc3dad902c1651 lea5b6578a2f56ac7f511284fb7f016cfc3903f49a0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-7 ] [654b19df654e9605707d590b3bclabb094fca581702381c36176fefce4016d81784 d2ce504f7c04846b0479809fl65elc4c139b3ff993a0326efcdea4917af33]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-8 ] [2a9946396101840194ee9bcc5aaf917ad921c731d0dbf334839d3120d639bbblf7e 745cbbeced9d7d2f5acffa7892320262aae42bf3dc4d6990a64fc0d379c76]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-9 ] [6eac276cbdcb5d35a0c971066a048666b8a276989a83a670819410fbd8f20a7e855 4109991c01408a7e7aa02afclb6ffc7f27c64c0e7f722a991elbc49ecf59d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 0] [02a288c211cb4dbedfb0adf2e12cad68811db777f74f99e6f9dca57180ff0577ba 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 f5b25acb8b30d70a5c5530494997975b3972a818eb8fd3af4f0602cd79b4fa]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 1] [806fb6c709fd8fba43c9dee9a9ff9bfab1587335a151cc00ade4d048e4e457eef9 0b0dc2429939167fde86407ace3004781e0aa4c3dc2299840e264fbafd088b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 2] [22dcd9490f97ae67e1827595bfb623adllde43dlb1369t71058b01b7493e7bf4e3 ea144df5302e54894693cc223e4dade8116a047c0a434af5d1974t779de676]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 3] [le989d88422a9d961dlf06dcaa6195f149a31f2fdcb0b0dla9816ffcf23dl613e5 ca080d346c99d75ba3968dbc8786cl15096f3b380ef03895ccclede5acc667]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=I00I 182-1 4] [5ce49adlf4d8d8c7857d87807293c5b863504b86ae3babd575bla54b84b62b6214 f1218b63aafb8823d2d499145e71c0fdcc5ec602493c0d25351e21279e6cdl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0I 182-1 5] [89299db8fd3e45c14674153396954082139913d3e56f4ae470e74d7eb557ac5a37 dcb9aa3 ldcl 9e3e488b92fe2fcacff65b4ebdlade38a45de3a3becbb726ca3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 6] [6ale4507bc17e6e6447149c39011886df5ab107ee3951a7ff837d96bd16553c098 9cda72fbd0e769cb20cfl 4936162ffc3cc58f6e2249b61 e9b90f072d0cafl e ]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001182-1 7] [911fc117adb373dt77d04cecel216blb7d687aff9cab7b350774ebl37d4320c705 95f2a18f31b03c741b776dd623f2805blfd2968abc9dfa521774ee54506b89]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 8] [5c7a2c7806b9c251ad28fba24ddbe29d38a5dccfd8504t73af44b0d89baae66906 e9c8b0f41cldff8018946ee4cd61a6a02e91fa01070d2059854f88fad5ecb2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 9] [3b26e538efc25c8b26d7ef36d152e0aeabd7f0e49e240033302b95a0623dccfce4 0f5c17bldb1988caa373dafd419d4226207291025dlc8eb8081896b1601876]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 0] [llb4a69fba2dbef7c040f82eeleb243a4698132244d752be3fb33cc7192bcc340b 79f4bd5e5979d4a7ca965c4ee3c7746ba10bba318c5e051e6d4717357ba902]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\":tlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 1] [4104a3ald0cclc49c62ff22bbee32adf3e88d93b64f7865lf124981e26eb747dc4 5f3f40df3ba7cb30623ee06cl 1006976aec81064315c97c73aef02a3dle7fd]] Document description:Exhibit Original fdename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-2 2] [5a0fb371519242533b0c8ce336b9d54dd5fe6b321d7d429dfb0cdb8555a5a797ee ledle6cfc089ele3044c4d359a4df8184a0f671ac33ea3ee2a67d84392dd72]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 3] [21b3bd817f4329aea4b8645930bb3a7d6f551d7c7ebfc0100449aa24a8blc04ddc 3202d7888f58eaaa6a23f0f040771fd28e0bfb7612d6029685390c9a2feda6]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, -etal. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its -Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits 81- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1-994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Josbua lntervenors. shall. have an extende.d '. time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 I I I I I I I I I I . . Case 4:82:..cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 T-elephene 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, .attomey for Separate Defendant North Little: Rock School. District, certify I electronicallyfile.d the foregoing:with the Clerk of the court using the.  ECF system which.sent notification.of-such filing;to. the following:.. . Mark A Hagmemeier,;, Assistant Attorney General. 323' Center Street;. Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 7220'f-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher He.II.er. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regi:ons-Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 5 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :26 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:24 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4143 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit# (20) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn. Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-0 ] [23f424df6165dd0af5a48c604be8a42ce88925e27b72ef8214a67b506d0d65f3b44 1781alb03a2e260ac8a1691a58a6be30062a807da4af18c95a649e7568dc7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=l 095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l 001262-1 ] [b60d4dc2dd43d0703e7bccebb6c759a99c85a6b3143bd382d4eccb53c908472f6b6 b95cbf8a31 e4a7b823d04 la57a90cl 02fa5f093f0f628d2bb62c9db3c3d70]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 ] [95b30cb39c08ddbef857bd37a3f6208729e9170580a0760c14cabee327ccd472523 e2f7b5a5a415d3a280f8a34d9ede2d5dl 7f4efb 11c473624de768cl 42cdc2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-3 ] [79bbce6cf7005d9b8962a96fabec77cal 52a79a0383b38935c9d4 7f57b5 lfl 74b81 63546ee5blce864eba62c0243b8fd79d19fa18ac4t20fe89f840573be119b]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-4 ] [5fc3981d411 ba53da3844250b4f5bfb96255e9fa5d803135a7a0f9dd912df44fb41 026373d67c7dc1060009a363705e30de794ela33a8e8ae959da6b2bc69f0d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-5 ] [552ad246de56e3d60a685972b822fd5d4feea47et2f68077382c913c77eba027048 459266f4b6a42fc4d685be5b55e4f463389020a94d0ceacef0069b439e74a]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-6 ] [16864e6278e2dla9bdddeeelf9e395084e4ccfa6233b25f96566fbc109b3a161d74 cc9cdb9d27b819457c04735c996c6e23a9511300dldff50acce0c957506ea]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-7 ] [74368ccd3cad082ca55235e44alfb32d68d6c4cblc90421606a48718db3bf320f6c 53bc6bd979fb24d7e33ba9f4ec3d8c48e3625755cd6198d9a6e881dd97f6c]] Document description:Exhibit Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-8 ] [3646c507 af00002bb44bba6793ff3a 1 aeb72175e2d06921d5c084797 ddl 29fl f0f5 39c328e61dbc0d3976889079a31435460b2138ed244d69529d9d422celcal]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-9 ] [b5e7ee808be7c96896345bd4590e69deb2845206b0a20373f0edl6da586cab08c51 ef5faeb787614133570068e760e5fe49d8620c63a9dc39cf87al 0 166a8a92]] Document description:Exhibit Original f'dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 0] [b77944eab8d772ab90aa8d690d83515dldfb911b9dllc963f4ff8t2a79a951d3aa lf612f41a3c6b952f48d9a3da6876bddl 119e68cab6892ablfcf3279d43t24]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 1] [72b8ad0a2180a61ae916d3cdbec0a39a66521c4aff4ded407c4478c700a68fa0c2 c80eda95ce8a9611 b944b80b6c5833fc5b0240e50fecfd266fl 4559ef5d08e]] Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 2] [816b6bd868tb0eeab0695928b04ba325dbb7b467f481bb2b910cda328f2cf82940 e71405ecbae73f4283ae574bef7149a75f20772cfde3ealeb33857704ed8e8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 3] [6e2dcc0c0b87e4c37aff0a67b95cc8a881339e6c39818a7f6906bblb88fe22feab ddllc726065eldcb8f5ff71a0413478ab80ead70074c4c8f59213bcdecff8e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l001262-1 4] [76ed6c79368186d379964f39ce0f2b412b168fdlb20a831193de4371ed662c4031 76631dbdca91bb61836cdcfca8f80bda71038864c2409935a67e30ca70fa6d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 5] [184e7a90a8830f6fcef677231548be690cd58c04aaf40aa47b048a0eda6ede0091 f204d846f2f8c8477e5e652c77728c18cd92644fd7e96e527401078cbf7b06]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 6] [5cc207877d56e4e2a667e0a9e0d524d226a7f9celbe951209669762b661dfffc01 e 166bfl c205b2167f7 c36e32fde3d8160da0b2b8941fca040dfffeca33684b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 7] [7659051ff91d5daalcabd3ed40ea080da57ae7f7b12b2f8fl6c7dcca279ddl5da7 dc5117964ec9102b7bbfff5f3992ba743818e90eb736587d310c60c45e33e4]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 8] [5b6dlf77d04051b462070fc0fe68c6baca528cf6556elc44a7d48f38tbc4748bad bb12c6ba0c70a21dac85a8ba943b9540d5db67f8c846c7ffl7e7a94816b34~] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5  ' .. [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-l 9] [8799d0fe271b53b3295672723fcadd3a361389b54d9563ce7bbdca88005442319e 8b4c37b0030975489057651818cfaf06ed6e7a33cad120e6196655c5b3203d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 0] [9ffc 19326b3e42:ff98ce344b6086ed4e 1706d 16e5ef85a25035201 b5cf80fl 9d 1 e aee482a7b4889333118849a87 d73e3070dal 629b2ee007f2af9f 4e 1 a00fe2d]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the flled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: - WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment: Docket entry modified to correct docket text (incorrect event chosen; this is not a motion, but an Addendum to [4141]). Motion event terminated. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Peti.tion for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts an!'.i has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NL'RSO detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be .. declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended .\\ time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-~75-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF.SERVICE I, Stephen W. JoF1es; attome;yfor-Separate: Defendant North Little~ Rock School: District,. certify! electr:ooicall~f filectthe:for::eg.oing,;with the Clerk ofthe .cour:tusing. the  ECF system which. sentnotificatian:.aisuctt.fi1ing.Jo,the following:_ Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney-General 323 Center Street; Suite:-200: Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge. \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions-Center: 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :53 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 4 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:52 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4144 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 - James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-0 ] [0868c679307f73045a3dbfb2c95157261c84c83e3e34fe8aeclef81:f91cb0c09c74 fba6daeeff319203617a2e4ab092102f450a6309c0b64a2993c1628a81be7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 ] [78d7342df58a134ba48a48f8b2ae80f3408be8acbb6b5ef04a29d73fb88e66d4f2e 2ed2348df8a369:f99c3a29a58d92a274:f98e7a729e213aeae53e0e96fdc41]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-2 ] [929717a9378022f4f30cbd8a7e6d9d78fb8e5d2c4b25d9c886b3988b333137fl783 e820426202101acf3797blld54e0d9429bc6626505d7157a44a3333196d71]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-3 ] [70fadb46421242f85d4251a7694c7248554a2e633adb49a95ba9b25ac5d0fb6c4bc acc31a82ec198a482008cc4766a2edl96cc73d858c30063ceabcd6872092f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-4 ] [b4f3cda43edea69679a27f3 75267f5fc073baccd656722a31 fl 92f9bbe613e78f4e 6656488ba104869b07f3174df90e30517827d83ab599500197cd1831ae99a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-5 ] [723dabl2b8e16d86e8bd07cbf96570d659814484d970bd27ela71de82ed9ec80216 c260de47a4327flc77823e3afDcf54b1999949620f581216ad8fbd25bc475]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-6 ][6252028fa87b8d94b112fc83becda43d44a80121bdb729d012565ce3173fe06e29d f46bc486541253b94b9ba7861e1517eab3ccedce7f7857a92c395100aafdf]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-7 ] [4b7blc17b066b4a379d6fcfea73c51flf3bea795d397f6855ec7401cf5bd9al246f bba27 al fl 2ee90fcfbba71d3f90cca99458b94be5ae0e01 f9c 1 b7b8ba0b66]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-8 ] [2e4f85557af367903dafcd9a7362ee9981754812dbf7bl2555a525ebb1130b60445 0d48eb4 l 98adbe9909f8a8fD3f3a6970579f3e 1 0ec5daf74f9d5219e9b2c5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-9 ] [7da21bf9clale6ae693ae14840c521clc766b8df88e93a56f6al0ad87fD3fc6ba95 ec765bce51ec028183fe55e55b730229012fd082001caa61435cd5522e3d6]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 0] [35a0e81d3adb4d8268e4662471fac6f87a9909bcdbaf431f7dc9a4f4970af9910f 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 732e8e5a09fa8d051ed8d5376b53c891e0a361d296733e7f53f3c59558b9e0]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 1] [7521baa9c85d55c35c946fdc42db853491d48fac55bb604f62eeeclfil8c386d4a6 23 387al 28a3 f26ffec2707552e04a9206fe68cd0ea353d45a913b3fa4d003e]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 2] [89c8ceac288e2780blfdb2588969c9edaf72d842959b0f866d8d776a2327cebb12 efa78058c28e7fc6a53 5181000d795dal 7 5cf8eac08f96fl d2be4 7ba5208a9]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 3] [5120f21a10ca4dc62d46dbd31dal70blec42a09eaa4468d8287ce6fe6c4ad86bd9 2f53dd8cla47f95862089bd4250f0caldaed532d4bd44b39a4f612847c072f]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 4] [8a6cdb28c24306f45093ee9dc98flb4d78f0a6079255c6afaf6d91e6b57d64261f 197c492c85835c76e928aab85ee28955e54e933e00d42balale72dd248095b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 5] [82a5d17b3ff4ele179508de437c0e515b3c971c68af27af472a55ffe55c7b0215f 53b43b03f4ae45blce786e7c5387blcce14278b6c93544628a25e5d6c93149]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 6] [72cf3d9bflbd4c0ba320eb60f9b94e65f720489713dalc419388eb30cfb379480a 49f4f880721 bb408fa6b9e6c8f6e7b3c32e6c31 ed571 f3a3c3260ccf9ae996]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 7] [71c4cd3124f67b92fec5610e5d48f3be29c62a9228edef96762b20651b08aa653d a9ebf4444aa4ab579478e08e6e86de04491ccab5718ae48164b23e8a3bd24a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 8] [afc78a3ca53f3a7abbb7eb95f77601a9f35c60661451b15b450d15b6a129ec64c7 b9c645dcld5526caebae7be0eb2c28c2fecc3cabb8 lf6ae3 7178f652b8f31 c]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 16 \\ INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION As this Court has recognized, \"federal judicial supervision of school systems was intended as a 'temporary measure' [and the] ultimate objective [is] to return school districts to the control of local authorities. n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) quoting Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). Accordingly, supervising courts \"must... provide an orderly means for withdrawing from that control when it is shown that the school district has attained the requisite degree of compliance. n Id. In 2006, the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSDn or the \"District\") School Board voted unanimously to seek unitary status. A complete copy of the . 2006 school board minutes is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit A. 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 16 In 2007, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 395, which is now codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 (the \"Act\"). In the Act, the State of Arkansas promises to \"compensate school districts that seek and obtain unitary status.\" These actions by the Board and the State alleviated NLRSD's political and financial concerns about seeking unitary status. Thus, NLRSD hereby simultaneously files its Petition for Unitary Status and this brief, which provides the support for its position that NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. History of Plan The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. V. Pulaski County Special Schoo/ Dist. on December 12, 1990 (\"NLR Plan\") is actually to be found in several documents beginning with NLRSD's original plan submission in 1986. This submission was the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial . Order of the Court of ..  Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to [NLRSD]\" which NLRSD filed on March 17, 1986 (\"March Plan\"). This initial submission addressed the interdistrict violations enumerated by the Court of Appeals in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special Schoo/ Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). The district court, however, required NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations, as well. Therefore, NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District' (\"October Supplement\"). 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 16 In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan consisting of the March Plan and October Supplement. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties. The first NLR Plan modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum that addressed the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 regarding student assignment. This motion was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. The next modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988, and was approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. This modification provided for the re.organization of NLRSD secondary schools. beginning. in the 1990-91 - school year: Additionally, Central.Junior. High Scho.ol was,closedand:-the;studeat assignment zones:.for the remaining three: junior high schools were redrawn to .. -- ensure comparable racial balance. These.modifications were implemented at the. beginning of the 1990-91 school year. Additional modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' \"lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" which was created in response to the finding that the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School districts had engaged i11 discriminatory actions that contributed to the disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the two districts and 3 --\"'- , ___ -\" --vv-- \" .. , '\".. \"'-''-''\"'u111c 111..,. ,..,.v , 11cu u;;J,~ 11uu, rayt::: \"+ or 10 Little Rock School District. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special - School Dist. No. 1, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Certain provisions of this Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. Another modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" filed on October 25, 1989 which satisfied paragraph VIII D. of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be. implemented. by NLRSD with. funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement This. Stipulation also gave effect to and superseded that portion of the. original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory edtication programs whicn could be implemented, only with addittonal State funds. On April 29, 1992, the elements of the NLR Plan were consolidated and published in a single document (the \"1992 Plan Handbook\") for distribution to NLRSD officials and for their ease of reference in implementing the provisions of the plan. On August 31, 1995, NLRSD reached an agreement regarding unitary . status in the area of student assignment and Elementary Gifted and Talented. 4- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 16 The Court approved the release of NLRSD from court supervision on student assignments and Elementary Gifted and Talented on September 18, 1995. On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an order approving LRSD's Revised Plan, which stated that it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of LRSD.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 993 (E.D. Ark. 2001). Thus, NLRSD is no longer required to comply with the lnterdistrict Plan, and the sole measure of NLRSD's unitary status is its compliance,with the NLR Plan. In compliance with an order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Office: of DesegregattcmrManitoring;;(\"ODM~). was:create.d-. Se:e. Littlfl'.Ro.ck:.Scbo.ol: Dist .. K . PulaskLCa . ., Special.Schoof Dist .. Na. 1,, 92:t F.2cL t371, 1'3.8.\u0026amp; (8!h CJr. _ - 1990). Tl:ieu:ol~.of the ODM wasto; monitortbe\"c.omplianc.e;:of thecpartie.s,,with:the  settlement.plan\u0026amp;-.and:.the-, .settleme0t agreement : Se.a Id:. andddttle~'Roc~ Se.boo/', -. DisL 1,L PulaskLCa ... Spe.ciaLSchool.Dist Na .. i, .. 769. E.Supp __ .1483.; 1495. (E.D .. '- Ark. 1'991). Legal Standards The standard for determining whether a school district which is subject to judicially supervised desegregation plan is now well-established: the district must have acted in good faith to implement its plan and must have achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of that plan. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 16 A. Good Faith In order to establish that NLRSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has \"complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that \"good faith\" is demonstrated when, . . . the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duratior-i of the school district's. compliance record must be considered: .... a court should give particular attention to the school system's '- record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision.\" Id. B. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving \"good faith,\" NLRSD must also establish that it is in \"substantial compliance\" with the NLR Plan. As this Court has stated, \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 16 - burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for \"substantial compliance\": (l]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' . . . [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988; 1027 (E.D. .. Ark. 2002) citing..Cody V. Hillard; 139 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. -.1998). Also. in Little Rock Schoo/Dist., this Court.more succinctly set out.its: test for substantiat compliance when it stated. that it. would be,. \"required. to examine whether any-of LRSD's: failur.es-to comply wittr the Revised Plan in the  \\ six challenged areas are 'serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantiat. noncompliance'; and (2) 'to cast doubt' on [NLRSD's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. at 1035-1036. Thus, \"substantial compliance\" is not legalistic compliance with each \"jot and tiddle\" of the North Little Rock Plan but, instead, is a measure of the NLRSD's history of working to comply with its plan as a predictor of whether it has experienced a change in its operations and attitudes such that the it will continue to comply with the Constitution after the being released from court supervision. 7 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 16 Record of Compliance Declaration of NLRSD's unitary status is proper because the District has maintained substantial compliance with its plan in good faith throughout the two decades it has been under this Court's supervision. The discussion below details the evidence of NLRSD's good faith and compliance with its plan. The discussion also explains how NLRSD recognizes the latest research, methodologies, laws and technology while continuing to remain faithful to the goals and values of its desegregation plan. A. Evidence of Compliance As detailed in the October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status. of Implementation of North Little Rock.School District's Desegregation. Plan (\"1988. Status Report\"), NLRSD acted, expeditiously,and,comprel:tensb.tely to .. implement its original: dese.gre.gati:an plan approved:,by the; Court in 1987': A complete copy of the 1988: Status Report- with7 appendi:~esr is. attached: to the: Petition. filed .. herewith as. Exhibits: 8(1) to B.(.t1)_ NLRSD. continued to, comply with the 1987 version . of the desegregation plan, which was significantly incorporated into the plan approved by the court in 1992. Soon thereafter, NLRSD initiated and completed a self-audit (\"1994 SelfAudif). A complete copy of the 1994 Self-Audit detailing the status of the individual provisions of the 1992 plan is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit C. The 1994 Self-Audit analyzed the specific nature of the 188 plan provisions and detailed NLRSD's compliance with each. The 1994 Self-Audit also identified the following factors for each of the individual provisions: (1) the 8 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 16 administrator or group responsible for execution; (2) the date of implementation; and (3) references to other audits and reports monitoring the particular compliance activity. Accordingly, the 1994 Self-Audit provides significant evidence of NLRSD's dedication to complying with its desegregation plan. After the Court approved NLRSD's unitary status for student assignment in 1995 and for elementary gifted and talented in 1996, NLRSD continued to monitor the status of the other provisions of its desegregation plan. NLRSD submitted periodic status reports detailing its findings to the Court and other parties pursuant to the lnterdistrict Plan until this plan was superseded by the modifications to the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan and the Pulaski County School District's Desegregation Plan in 1998. Thereafter, NLRSD continued to provide information. as requested by the ODM for its monitoring of the District. Moreover, from 1987 to date, no motion has been filed: by any party alleging violations of or seeking to enforce provisions of. NLRSD's plan or settlement agreements or otherwise alleging that NLRSD was not in compliance ,. with its desegregation plan. On June 9, 2004, the ODM published its report on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan (\"2004 ODM Status Report\"). A complete copy of the 2004 ODM Status Report is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit D. In analyzing the nine \"discrete divisions of the NLRSD desegregation plan, ODM relied on its direct observations of NLRSD employees, ODM's interviews with NLRSD employees,. reports from the Arkansas Department of Education and data submitted by 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 10 of 16 \\ NLRSD. 2004 ODM Status Report at 1-2. Taken as a whole, the ODM's independent and objective report demonstrates that NLRSD has substantially complied with the desegregation plan in good faith. B. Evolution of the Plan The very heart of NLRSD's desegregation plan is its goal to remedy the effects of the segregative acts which this Court found the District to have committed. These segregative acts, originally identified by this Court in 1984, are enumerated in the Introduction of the 1992 Plan Handbook. To ensure that the desegregation goal was accomplished, the District's desegregation plan outlined specific programs, services and activities that NLRSD used or proposed to use at the time the plan was created. However, \"[mJany of the educational approaches that were incorporated into the desegregation plan-have become outdated.\" 2004 ODM Status Report at 1. Accordingly, NLRSD has. modified the specific programs or \"has implemented different procedures and . programs intended to more effectively achieve desegregation goals.\" Id. Such modifications are not a deviation from NLRSD's desegregation plan but, instead, reflect its commitment to the principles of its desegregation plan as educational standards and best practices evolve. Indeed, it is critical to remember that desegregation \"plans are a floor, not a ceiling when analyzing whether NLRSD has met the standard of substantial compliance with the plan. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schoof.District No. 1, et al. , 769 F. Supp 1491 , 1495 (E.D. Ark. 1991). NLRSD . never agreed to adhere to plan specifics into perpetuity. In fact, this Court Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 11 of 16 instructed the districts to maintain \"sufficient flexibility to deal with changing conditions and meet unforeseen developments\" with regard to their desegregation plans. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 769 F. Supp. 1483, 1490 (E.D. Ark. 1991). Moreover, the 2002 testimony of the Joshua Intervenor's expert witness, Dr. Terrence Roberts, further supports this position. Dr. Roberts was one of the \"Little Rock Nine,\" who continued his education by obtaining a bachelor's degree is sociology, a master's degree in social work and a doctorate in psychology. Dr. Roberts specifically warned against what he termed \"compliance mentality,\" instructing the districts to focus \"not on the letter of the plan, but the spirit of the plan.\" See the Excerpted Transcript of July. 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing,. attached .. to. the: Petition filed: herewith as Exhibit Eat p ... 630. and p .. 649. NLRSD has done~exactly that.. After implementing:the:plan in: the:ear1y 1990s, specific. NLRSD programs: have: evolved. or hav.e bee' replace.a b.y more effective- or:- perfected. programs, which continue to combat segre.gative. effects .. while. als.o.. recognizing the mandates of state and federal laws, the enlightenment of research and numerous advances in technology and instructional methodology. This evolution is characteristic of the foresight of NLRSD. The District takes great pride in preserving an understanding of the latest research redefining best practices, implementing cutting edge programs that ultimately become the requisite practice or the norm, improving programs that have become archaic and replacing programs that have become obsolete. 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 12 of 16 The following examples illustrate the necessity of educational program evolution and NLRSD's continuing good faith commitment to its desegregation goals as outlined in its plan. The NLR Plan provides for a Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth (\"HIPPY\") to \"be established in lower socio-economic attendance zones.\" NLR Plan page 34. As a Compensatory Education program, HIPPY was designed to prepare lower socio-economic pre-school children for success when they entered kindergarten. The year after HIPPY was originally implemented; it served fifty (50) fouryear- old students, utilizing home instructors to educate parents by providing reading. material to use wjth their children ... The. HIPPY program eveataally- evolved. with. the District.taking. a more- active. role .in the .. pre,..schoaUearning. by, offering classroom-basect-early childhood':edu.catio:tt and:ihcr:easing, the capacity,  of the program .. In more recent years, the program replaced the .home instructors,. with. a \"parent liaison\" trained in Minnesota Early Learning Design. The parent liaison \"teaches parents the child development principles that pertain most directly to school readiness [by] maintain[ing] parent contact [and] conduct[ing] workshops[.]\" 2004 ODM Report p. 23. NLRSD's current Early Childhood Program, the perfected progeny of HIPPY, serves approximately five hundred (500) three-year-old, four-year-old and five-year-old children, whose eligibility for admission is based on certain factors including poverty, low birth weight, abuse or neglect, and English as a second language. Id. The program also offers an 12 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 13 of 16 infant and toddler section the children of older NLRSD students, preparing these children for education, while preventing their parents from dropping out of school. Additionally, NLRSD's Early Childhood Program supplements  the curriculum developed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services' Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education by emphasizing readiness for kindergarten but allowing teachers to begin reading instruction if they deem a child ready. Id. Early childhood programs like NLRSD's are widely found to be beneficial, though they have not been implemented on a wide spread basis. Other significant examples of NLRSD's continuing commitment to the principles of its plan are the District's Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, which include. the Alternative School program and. Student Assignment Classes program. NLR Plan page, 37-38 .. NLRSD's original Alternative S,c hool served students identifieda s at risk of dropping out o.f school and was located: at the: Boys and Girls Club. However, the Distri-ct \"decided to develop its. own alternative. programs using. District resources~ when budg.et issues and a series of personnel changes at the Boys and Girls Club \"resulted in a weak and ineffective alternative program.\" 2004 ODM Report at page 47. Currently, NLRSD has five sites that serve as alternative schools based on the age of the students. Additionally, the SAC program, included in the provisions of the 1992 plan, prevents students from dropping out of school by providing an inschool suspension program, removing the students from the classroom but keeping them in a supervised educational environment \"These classes have 13 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 14 of 16 '\\ been a consistent force in providing students an opportunity to continue their education while they are ... in the discipline system.\" Id. NLRSD now \"goes beyond the [original programs set out] in its desegregation plan by offering a dropout retrieval program at Shorter College and providing a highly focused program for credit deficient students in the Graduate Academy.\" Id. at 50. In its 2004 report, the ODM \"commend[ed] the NLRSD for the many programs it has in place to serve as alternatives to putting students out of school [and b]ecuase the NLRSD allows students and parents to choose among alternative education placements and home suspensions, a student's educational future is determined by the home in conjunction with the schooldistrict\" Id .. Conclusion The purpose, of. court supervisien was-, to create a:. unitary schael: s.ystemc. from what was once a \"dual school system, establis~ing and maintaiming ..: a. system in which the interests. of. both black. and white students were equal. by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Today, three of the District's seven Board members are African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains a bi-racial committee. As a district which \"has been largely characterized by an absence of rancor and dissension, NLRSD has consistently avoided \"potentially volatile decisions\" and made smooth transitions in its programs. 2004 ODM Report at page 45. 14 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 15 of 16 \"The NLRSD superintendent has been an admirable force for collaboration and accord as he has involved both the internal [faculty, parents, students] and external community in many weighty district matters. .. demonstrating wise sensitivity to the adage that people will support what they help create ... By avoiding surprises, meaningfully involving in changes those who are most affected by those changes, maintaining a congenial and professional demeanor, and consisting treating others with respect, the district's CEO has fostered the growth of cohesiveness in tt,e NLRSD and promoted significant level of harmony between the district and the community.\" Id. NLRSD's School Board reflects the racial make up of the community. As a cooperative group, the Board weighs the interests of each student and parent equally irrespective of their race; so that it is no longer necessary for the Court to be an artificial voice for the black students. Thus, NLRSD has been an exemplary model of a district that has substantially complied in good faith: with the goals of its desegregation plan and, as a result, has become unitary. As Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon observed, \"desegregation is- a state- of- mind:.\" NlRSD has certainly achieved this ultimate goal. The Court should note that NLRSD has stipulated that the Joshua lntervenors may have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition given the significance of this matter. The parties agree that this would not affect the schedule for discovery or any hearing dates. Additionally, the Court should be aware Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 provides that the District would be eligible for reimbursement of the legal fees associated with seeking unitary status if the Court makes such a declaration by June 14, 2008. Therefore, it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner that will allow resolution before this date. 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 16 of 16 '\\ For the reasons set out above, NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for-Separate Defendant North Little-Rock School District; certify I electronically. filed:-the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which s.ent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 16 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of2 polly- From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21 , 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, (4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 9/21/2007 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.wilJiams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091 ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7f0ed13a826f81bc0ad20af9d8b8lc92266dal]] 9/21/2007 Page 1 of2 From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:21 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:20 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4145] Brief in Support: Docket entry modified to correct docket text referring to 4143, Addendum. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electrQnically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Cbachkin 9/21/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 9/21/2007 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 - Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7fDed13a826f81bc0ad20af'9d8b81c92266dal]] 2/5/2008 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:59 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 9:59 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4146(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPTS filed for dates of 1/20-21/07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115] Notice of Appeal, Court Reporters: Cheryl Nelson, Judith Ammons. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:01 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:01 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4147(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115) Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Christa R Newburg. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:07 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Record Sent to USCA This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:07 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4148 Docket Text: Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals: 3 volumes transcript of 1/20-21/07 \u0026amp; 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing re [ 4115] Notice of Appeal, ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/27 /2007] [FileNumber= 1004 704-0 ] [97eab3e6780fb09ea7784309543659d76e08dec9db6dce657f7d7822323351423d4 a79fe0418ad40882c95eb21f56dl b293280c15851a77699e4468d4118bf19]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org September 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 1 - 2007 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Siner~,::::-' cDs~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rod\u0026lt;  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007. Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. San1uelJones,ill Mitchell, Willian1s, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cikttfh co m IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OCT 1 - 2007 OFACEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3: 18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/28/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4149 Docket Text: NOTICE of filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/28/2007] [FileNumber=1006413-0 ] [b5cc 13fb999668db3c36be094 79de878fl e3b5f 459c26302c403f897 a88cbe0edf5 327e62134 752a29520865fc5bbad02007ftb3b95435dc 186490941 ca8eaa]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1763","title":"Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-07/2007-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1763"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["40 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: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, amended order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project mangement tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED JUL -9 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/,\\PPELLEE V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA INTERVENORS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come the Joshua Intervenors, et al., by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfuU~, request an additional fifteen (15) days in order to allow time to have this matter resolved between the parties as set forth by the Court's Order Qr in which to have appellant's brief filed. This request is made with the understanding that no further extensions for filing appellant's brief would be requested or allowed in the event that this matter was not 1Iediated or otherwise disposed of. , Appellant's counsel has been unable to make direct contact with appellee's counsel on either !uly 5 or July 6, 2007 and can not state whether appellee's counsel objects to Lll! delay. There is no prejudice to the appellee by the request. Respectfully Submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 Certificate of Service ' I, John W _ Walker, do hereby state that on this 6th day of July, 2007, a copy o:f the foregoing Motion has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the C M/EF, which.shall send notification of such filing to the following: Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net tmiller@fec.net M. SatnuelJones,m siones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com linda.calloway@jli.com Scott Paris Richardson . Scott.richardson@arkansasag.gm: agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel via United States Mail, postage prepaid: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ls/John W. Walker 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilAn 011111200? IN Tl IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DIS .l .l(ICr 0.t AKKAMSA:S W .b:sT~KN Vl V 1:SION PAGE 03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL . DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIERlNE KNIGIIT, ET AL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S A n.rTJ'l .1 .,-.~.,..,...... ~,..,..,..,-.,-..\"'-,.,... ,..,..,.Y,...9-- --. _,..._, I 00YuJ.1u .. c11:1 \"''''\"--'.\u0026amp;.=.ru,11,u ru.1,1111,..u ur u.uw1 For its response to the arguments of the Joshua Intervenors at a telephone hearing on June 27, 2007, the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) states: 1. Joshua argues that \"Little R.ock is appropriately stiU in [this case) because there's relief that still must be provided by Little Rock in order to facilitate the agreements of t'he other 'two districts, so that it would-still be appropriate for Little Rock to make financial contributions to this matter.\" (Tr. of June 27, 2007 telephone hearing, p. 6) Joshua also makes the following argument: Id. atp. 7. Llttle Rock whHe as the plaintiffs sought the relief, and part of the ,-.-Jjpf jo ;,.,,.~,H c-,.,.;M ~ncl'bfll\"l:I anA foJ..oftOI ;.- lA- tn. l\\A tt,.,tt,,. 1'1 ~,..., - --- ,..., ..,_..., __ ,._,  - , .... __ ... .., ....... , --  ,w  '\" -.v ,A - \"'- _, A,11, ._,.,,, 1\\6 .,.,,f .... __ ...... . \"\"A \"\"'\"'\" .......... -A.-h ,..A1,,,.AA,,,..  .,.,J...:.-J,.. _,, -\u0026amp; ..... ,.._ ,,,_ __ ;_ AAf .. .o. ... .,,,,.,., ~ ' \"\"''\"' ~..,.., .,,...,. .\u0026amp;MU!J\u0026amp;\u0026amp;\"' ..,~,,vu.a~ wuu.,,, cau VA.\"''\"''\"' Cl.A\"' .1.1a, a;;G Llt\"J.~ Rvek :.;till !i@ a w11ti.r,~lli,,\u0026amp; vtlige1tivJ, tv ii.~ tv ~t t~4.at what W.ili i'c'1u11cd l:,y tl1e p,iui.lc:, wiil, Jl:;:,pc~i iv. ihc uli,c, ui::il,j~t:s i:s iwpiCJlltmicu. Page 1 of 3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilP.r1 07 /11 /?007 Pag~ 2 of 3 2- These arguments do not justify or authorize the court to continue to require LRSD's par6cipation in the lunding of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ''ordC1'ed the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision\" of the desegregation efforts of LRSD. PCSSD and NLRSD. LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528, 529 (8th Cir. 2006). This Court has released LRSD \"from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM and Joshua based upon its having subs~ntially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" Order Declaring the little Rock School District Unitary, February 23, 2007, p. 49. This Order has not been stayed and r,ernains in effect pending appeal. 3. Since ODM was created ''to assist the district coun in its supel'Vision\" of LRSD, and the Court has held \"that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring,\" then tbere is no practical reason for requiring LRSD to continue to participate in the funding of ODM. More importantly, however, LRSD has achieved unitary status and is no longer subject to the Court's jurisdiction to impose further remedies such as a requirement to continue to fund the '. ODM- Board of Edu.catwn v. Dowelt 498 U.S- 237, 247 (1991) (\"From the very first, federal supervision of local schooJ ~ystems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.\"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the con_trol of local autttorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our govemmental system.\") WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's request that LRSD continue to participate in the funding of OJ\u0026gt;M should be denied. Page 2of3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 usoc Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4131 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 400 We!it Capitol Little :Rocle, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 05 I certify that on July ll, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th .. r'r\"1..+ ,,ci,,n- ~hp. r\\1~r1: ~ 1'tA.., u1ftirl, f'.lht.:!:ll 11,.,...,~ nl\":-- ,_.,. ..:,}:;_ ...,._.,, ,.c, - ---- \"'JY .....A J\u0026amp;Af  .... -   'tlllll-- ..,_,,_ ,,V-,1;.,,A;!..'.~.U-;-!'\u0026amp;\\'!'\\, Vn 4~ ~t\"\"-'t6, '....\".. ~f' .1.;.,.;,'1_\",',\u0026gt;e1:\",!' ,1.1~ . ~~~- F-,.,JJ-nu.._.r..;..n. e,. Scott. rjchardson@ai.state.ar. u~ sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@J1j.com johnwalkeratty@aol com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf r)ff;.,..D .,,,./ Tl.o~.t!l,~ .t!!!J -,;.,,..,,,, ~l_,.n ;,_., ~, - ........ - ..,._ --Vi'lol't:,,'..,.0'--'..._v,, AAv .. \"\"\"\"\"\"\" 1 TT-: ..-. .... 1'.Y .. ...: - - - 1 n1 .... ,.. .. ~ VUAVU ~Cl.1.,1.VUCi41. A 4,04,0 ,..,,... TJ7 r,.ro_:_.,,,. , c,  . ,: . .. iD,-,~ A.k-r YT., \"\"\"'1}'1\\Vl, JUAL'-' .J.U7.J T :~.,'t .. '\"-   '  -\" 'T\"t. ,..,,,_,.../'1,4 J..,j.LL.lC ~\"'-\"-, ~ / ,1,,,,1,VJ.. Mr. Qayton Blackstock ivir. Mark Burnett iOiO W. Third 5treet Little Rock, AK 72201 JudgeJ. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Pase 3 of 3 Isl Christopher Heller 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4132 Filed 07/12/2007 Page, of 1 Mr. John W. Walker J,..1-,., UT ,111,..11,.~r n \" .,..., , . ,. ,.     ~..,, A,a ol; JV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEAN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICH-\"RO SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 6w W. CAPITOL, r.iuOM 423 Facsimilei /e01) 004-51\u0026lt;69 July 12, 2.007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, ~t al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: PAGE 02 I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helpinp; fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is rip;ht. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any ~pecific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thumi:iy; .Jn\\y J.9, ?007. Original to the Qerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Th.Qmas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4125 Filed 0o_/')7/'XJ07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE CUO VW , ...,._,-, 1 UL, HUUM 423 , , .,,,-rt r .n,.,,,._,,. ,. ,.,,.,11.,,..,.,,. _,,,,.,.,.,. ,,.,.,.,. ._. f --- .,..,._,,, -fllY\"ll'IV-,. ILLV T~.,) FacslmMe (5011 604-5149 June 27, .2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, F,ldrecl~e \u0026amp; f'.l~rlr. T .T ;p - T Ittl_,. ~.t:\"t:-.k Region.c: rentAI' 400 WP.-d. r-.1-1,:n-i-tn--l -A---\"'-\".\"... \"-'-\" S.tlt~ 21]1)1) T ,tt! .. 1),-.,-\\,- \"1) ,.,..,,,1'11 -,,.n,, _ .......... _ \"\"\"'\"'-\"'' .. _, '--v ... ...,_.,,.J Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Mr. Heller: PAGE 06 P~nA 1 nf 1 ~ . I held a telephone conference tx.,day with all the parties except the LRSD. The primary purpose was discussing Judge Roaf's appointment as the new Director of 0DM. She was present durinjt the telephone conference. Mr. Walker expressed the opinion that LRSD is still 14in the case\" for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the 0DM, including Judge Roaf's i:alllry r J:i:1n n.,:it ~v~ri ttiJs point much th,;mght, but had concluded th.at J . R.~n i41 ''01Jt'' ~i.nr~ It ~..J.1.~ ~~ 4'!d.a.re\u0026lt;l .mita.\"J. JJn!et e., c!-c-c.!TT:e, the Cc'(!rt nf An~~lc ,f,.,.lo,.,,.c tn thP ,.,., ... ~\"' . -- ..  :,:,;  - __ .. ,,,_., _ _ - . , . .. .,._ ..... - .. J  I would like your response to 1his. You will probably want to order a transcript of the telephone ,c~nferen-c-e C~fer~ ~Z-r'f.d1r.i; :,v tha.t yvu ~, ~ ~~r. 11/G~kriic'~ ~-~\"t-fiL.- iX'irtLS. ,Please let me have your response by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Original to the Ocrk of the Court cc: Thr1 H.nnor:it:,)1'1 .Ji:,l'I Th,:1m~s R?.y 0th,-,- r,mng.oJ nf Jl.o,v,r,-1 Page 1 of 1 Cordially, /s/ Wm, R.WilsonJr. I 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. united states District Judge bU0 West Capito~, Room 4~~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.604.5140 Fax - 501.604.5149 fax *: 19-371-0100 da'te: July 13, 2007 !'\u0026gt;nbj~ct:: I T.Rsn ___________________ ...... NOTES: I 5 including cover page I I think this is more than what vou I are lookina for, but better toolmuch than too little!! If this I isn' t what vou are lookina for. lolease call~me at 604-514i and I l~ill continue the search. I Mary I \\\" PAGE 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 12, 2007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helping fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is right. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM, and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any specific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thursday, July 19, 2007. \\ Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 \\ MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;950536@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; cc: ubject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U . S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was e ntered on 7/12/2007 1:45 PM CDT and filed on 7/12/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv- 866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4132 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts .gov/cgi-bin/show_case_ doc?4132 , 26052 ,,MAGIC ,,, 2005701 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER Joshua intervenors are to file any specific statutory or case law in support of their position re. ODM funding by noon July 19, 2007 Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/12/07 . (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com \u0026amp;:hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ~ hristopher J . Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel J bnes, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Claybb rn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82- cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Li ttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewel l yn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . A Post Office Box 818 W,rort Smith , AR 72 90 2- 0818 Office o f Desegregation Monitor One Union Nat iona l Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson  Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. ost Office Box 818 ort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/12 /2007 ] [FileNumber=950535-0 ] [6eeb968ba3a74ea39c6ded7f0a1968bddaaf99clldb3e7159930b41aebbda760ac6dd4299be529c f01534577b554f6792c2992da40e8b8753fb9437be068dac4] J  llfJ L ,~ DURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURyAS'TERN d~cT~BAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 g 2007 WESTERN DIVISION   LITILEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 17, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are - any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this _if.!_ day of July, 2007. RECEIVED JUL f O 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION Jt10NITORING ~------ STATESDrsTRICT JUDGE Office of Desegregation Monitoring l.ln!t9d stal8s Ola1rlct Cell.It  Eastam District of Arlcarllas RECEIVED July 17, 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF The Honorable William R. Wilson DESEGREGATION MON/TOR/NG Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol. Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Dear Judge Wtlson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Cspltol, Suite 1895 llttle Rock, Arlc:ansas 72201 (601} 37'6-620\u0026gt; Fax (fi01) 371-0100 Attached for your approval is the proposed ODM budget for 2006-07, the fiscal year just concluded. The format of the budget document follows that ofODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. The LRSD has requested that we provide the amount of accumulated vacation days for the ODM staff so that they may discharge their accrued shared of this :financial obligation. However, we  have not included this sum in the 2006-07 budget pending resolution of the iss~ of the future operation of ODM and ofLRSD's participation in the 2007-08 budget In addition, we have a small amount of money ($2,603.25) from the sale of smplus furniture that will be carried over to the 2007-08 fiscal year. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, ~ft,,)/ Director, Office of o\"::::l.on Monitoring Enc. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2006-07 BUDGET REVENUE 2005-08 2005,08 200M7 Budget ~ Proposed Budaat State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LRSD Budget allocation 119,348.00 119,348.00 112,358.00 Minus aedll from pnwlous year (1,283.00) (1,283.00} 4,324.00 Equals LRSD'a share of the budget 120,831.00 120,831.00 108,032.00 NL.RSC Budget allocatlon 43,327.00 43,327.00 41,786.00 Mlnua aedll from prrricus year (-488.00) (-488.00) 1,608.00 Equals NLRSO's shara of the budge! 43,793.00 43,793.00 40,178.00 PCSSD Budget allocaClon 84,084.00 84,084.00 77,999.00 Minus credit from previous year (904.00) (904.oo) 3,002.00 Equals PCSSD'a share of the budget 84,968.00 84,988.00 74,997.00 Interest 2,398.58 Tolal Revenue 446,739.00 '148, 138.56 432,141.00 Nole: 1118 un of1he cndlB In lhe above chm1 II the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, lndudlng bank lnlnat eemed. EW!ll'J budget C'/dl, 00M aJllies lhls amount IDwmd each IChool dlllrtcl'8 bu\"'8IBd allocallon. Bolh 1hat allocallon and the c:nldlt .. delelmlned ~ the proposed budget by lhe pnMOUS ,_., OclDber 1 erlRll!nent numbn, than adjuslBd accordlngly wlWI Iha erllDllment numbn fir' the CUITlnt yw become avallabla. EXPENDmJRES 200\u0026amp;-08 2005-GI 2D04MJ7 Budget ExpenclltUla Proposed Budfd Communk:atlorm 8,000.00 8,380.12 4,805.00 Dues and Fees 276.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 FoodSenllca D.00 0.00 0.00 Management Servtcea 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per1odlcals 0.00 135.00 108.00 Priming \u0026amp; Binding 6,250.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Servicea 1,700.00 722.50 783.00 Rent 62,584.00 51,246.16 41,\"54.00 Repelra\u0026amp;Malnteralce -400.00 0.00 162.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salariee 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Beneflla 74,322.00 73,681.16 76,020.00 Staff D881opi1ient 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUpplJe8 3,500.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel 1,525.00 90.32 0.00 Insurance 800.00 601.00 606.00 Tatal Expendlluraa 448,739.00 439,338.17 432,141.00 Dlffllrwlc:e (Income minus EJq,erxllturw 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2006-07 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]be amount previously ordered fur the Pulaski County :Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied towatd the budget of the office of the MetropolitanSupen,isor .... Thebalaor.eofthebudgetwillbeapportionedamongtbe school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]be officeprmously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office ofDategregation Monitoring. ... 20lll-07 lludgat 1ar1 %al 200l-47 2DOIMl8 200I-01 EnralJ- TCICld Budget Crwdlt 8udglt ment Enroll- Allaclllaa (Budglt Pa.,rmnt ment not~ LRSO 28,470 41.40 112,388 4,124 108.032 NLR8D 9,842 18.00 41,7115 1,808 40,178 PCSSD 18,374 33.80 TT,\u0026amp; 3,00'l 74,997 SIIIBafM 200,000 200,000 .. Tdal 64,886 100.00 ~141 8,1134 423;Jm Desmibed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to cfetemri~ eacli district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arbosas' contn\"bution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnl\u0026gt;Ution). 3. Each district is cn:dited with its pro nta share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The S1Dil is the amount each district is to contribatc to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact m:nount due fur its share of ODM'sbudgct. - EXPENDITURES N.: Definitions of expense categories are based on the .Arkansas School Finalfclal Accounting Manual. Communieadom: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages \u0026lt;\u0026gt;r information. This category includes telephone services aa well as postage machine rental and postage. 1-=1 ~ .. 1-~1 The decrw In 1he 2006-07 budget 1B due ID a negolalBd ,die wllh a 118W aervlca pruvldar flld a reduced number of phone Ines Wti1 !he ollk:a. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or aiae,,smeot fi\u0026gt;r m.eDJbcrship .in professional or other organi:zatfons or mmociations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such aa conference registration fees. Equipment: Expenditures fbr the initial, additional, and repl8'YMlent items or equipment. such as ~ and machinery, 0.00 Manageu.ent Serriccl: Services pex~ by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy atca or in gem:ral operations. This category includes consultants, indmdually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in confelence ur through systematic studies. --:1 ~J-.:::1 Pagc3 - Periodkals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at R:gular iDtcrvals ofless than a ye,ar and continuing for an indefinite period. 1-~00l ~~1-..::1 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design aod printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2005-08 Budget 200MB 2006-07 PropoNd ExpencllturN Budget 5,460.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Professional and Teelmlcal Sea vie\u0026amp;; Services which by their nature can be per.fanned only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1-=1 ~1-..:::1 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary end long-range use. 200l-08Budgat 200s-GI 2008-o7 Propoaed l!xpendllurN Budget 52,564.00 51,245.18 41,-464.00 The decnsa8e In 1he 200\u0026amp;-07 budget 18 due to a radudlon In office apace. Repaln and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and roairrtenaoce !la'Vices which restore equipment t.o its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contmctua1 agreements covering the mainter,an~ end operation of equipment and equipment systc.ms. 1-::1 --=:001-~1 Page4 - Salaries: Salarus are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennaneot or temporary nature. 200\u0026amp;-48Budget 2005-08 2008-G'TPropoeed Expendltulva Budget . 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2006-07 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. flllmeof -- 20GI-07 Em..,_ 8alaJy Salary Andl98Roaf' 1,373 GenaJonas' 63,438 48,480 Margie Powell 74,880 77,354 HonamSmllh* 74,890 84,694 Polly Ramer 66,212 68,081 UndaBlyarlt 31,173 32,189 Total 300,803 302,181 1Judge Andrea Roaf began a !he Oll9dDr d ODM on June '/1, 'l!X1/. 'Gaut Jona raduc:ad his wm time fnJm 415 ht 2005-08 ID 315 llme for ~7. In addllloo, Gene elacfl 1D recelw payment for fGUIU8I lneunmcapnlffllana In Beu af1he lnlUl'ance benetllsand lllsaalary ra1lacll lhatdedalon. Gene l8Slgned 3-15-07. His sallly Includes 45 dayl of aa:umulallld vatlarl. 31-knce Smllt realgnad ~-Hie aalary lndudaa 33.5 day\u0026amp; of 8DCUIIIJlalBd vacabl. Bencfia: Benefi1Bare1he amounts paid on behalf of mnployees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and abo~ Such payments an, fringe benefit payments. 20CHl,08 Budgat 2GO\u0026amp;,,OI 2Qae.o7Propoeed E!xpendlturN Budget 74,322.00 73,881.16 78,020.00 Beow a breakdown .ofeachemnw,cc's2006-07 . 1 is bv \" : . .  frirui benefits Name car 8oclll RilClnt- Hoapllal,- Litt Dental Hoapltal Short Total Allowance Sec:urftr ,_ -lzdan lnL fndela1111J Tenn ..... Roaf 105.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.03 Jena 720,00 3,783.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,'4\u0026amp;5.92 POMJII 1200.00 5,1173.13 10,997.80 3,137.98 32.84 275.79 60.98 82.88 21,740.93 8mllh 1200.00 8,326.44 12,025.17 3,143.84 32.84 275.78 80.118 62.88 23,128.49 Rimer 4,364.21 8,128.48 3,162.72 32.84 275.78 60.88 62.81 18,077.93 Biyant 2,G\u0026gt;.17 4,507.80 3,137.98 20.40 275.78 80.98 82.88 10,485.83 Tdal 3,120.00 22,941.80 35,651.03 12,582.28 118.32 1,103.04 243.84 251 .62 78,019.93 Pages Supplies: Expcnditurcs for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid fur material items of an expc:ndablenature that are consumed, worn 01!4 or detcrlo.rated in use or items that lose their identity through filbrication or incorporation into different or more complex uoits or substunces. 200a-o8 Budget 20ff.fl 2006-07PropoNCI ExpendlturN Budget 3,600.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with naveling or business, such as puking fees. Payments fur per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 90.32 IDJurancc: Expenditures fur all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2GOI-08 Budgllt I ..... I 2008-07 Proposed I e.pendHurw ~ . 800.00 801.00 608.~ Page6 Case : 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Li ttle Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain 6:~~age-Id : \u0026lt;955298@ared.uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W;bject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv- 00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/19/2007 1:41 PM CDT and filed on 7/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4134 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4134,26052, , MAGIC, ,, 200S707 Docket Text: ORDER parties have five days to file any objections to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' s proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 7/19/07. (Attachment: # (1) ODM ' s Proposed Budget) (dac)  82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw. net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 A ames M. Llewellyn, Jr Wl,ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 A 11iam P . Thompson ~ ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007] [FileNurnber=955297-0) [6c47df384b878d59fd66b8156lcflc07443ffbcac49763a0c6f65d4f08918b352ee5f46825al6f0 7e330e6ceeldd6f6528d0a3be42b7224da38ebel00b94eca4)) Document description : ODM ' s Proposed Budget Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007) [FileNurnber=955297-1) [70fa24bb774a735fll633220c3a4c5lfcb2dac89a5d943a47929d3b362649218ca83633c04a44f8 2fb9lc8lb7c64c65b015f9c8220cfa9bc5376dbc5293a0daa)) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DALE CHARLES, ET AL., RECEIVED JUL 31 2001 Off\\CEOf DESEGREGAl\\Otl MOtl\\lORlMG V. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S  RESPONSE TO APPEALLANTS' MOTION TO STAY For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD agrees that this appeal should be stayed during the time the parties are engaged in the mediation process. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Atto~ Christopher Heller '------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL., JUL 31 2007 OFFICE OF v. DESEGREGATION MONITORING. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors/ Appellants \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO INTERVENE For its Response to the Second Amended Motion to Intervene, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. A group of taxpayers, parents and patrons of the LRSD (\"proposed intervenors\") claim to represent the legitimate interests of LRSD and seek to intervene in this appeal. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraphs 21 - and 24. The proposed intervenors assert that the LRSD Board of Directors \"is unable to represent the interests of the District because the majority of the Board - members are under the influence of [Appellants' counsel].\" Id. at paragraph 25. They ask the Court to dismiss this appeal or, alternatively, to enjoin LRSD from seeking to resolve this appeal through the Court's prehearing conference program. Id. at paragraphs 31 and 32; see Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 32A; Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 33. 2. The director of the Court's prehearing conference program has scheduled a prehearing conference for August 9 and 10, 2007 at Little Rock. Appellants have presented LRSD a \"settlement proposal\" which will likely represent their opening position at the prehearing conference. The proposed intervenors believe that the Appellants' settlement proposal should be rejected. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 9 (\"[T]he proposed settlement will create a nightmare for the District\"); paragraph 8 (\"The settlement prop'osed by Mr. Walker would provide Mr. Walker unwarranted contractual leverage over the District);\" paragraph 14 (LRSD's attorney advised the LRSD Board that the \"settlement proposal would unduly bind the District\" and \"likely would violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution .... \"). LRSD has not agreed to Appellants' proposal, however, or decided to do anything more than participate in the Court's prehearing_ conference program. 3. The Intervenors do not provide the Court a sufficient basis to justify the extraordinary use of federal power to prevent opposing parties in litigation from even talking about their differences in an effort to resolve them. The federal 2 - courts have always respected the democratic process and the legitimate auth0rity of local officials. Even in cases involving constitutional violations ( and no illegal acts of any kind are alleged here), federal courts have recognized the importance of returning control to locally elected school officials at the earliest possible time. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.\") 4. The proposed intervenors want to intervene to ask the Court to dismiss this appeal \"for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, on mootness grounds.\" Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 31. Appellants have been ~anted two extensions of time but those have been within the authority of the clerk to grant. Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 37B{a). In a separate response filed today, L~D agrees with Appellants that this appeal should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the prehearing conference. There has therefore been no sanctionable failure to prosecute this appeal. 5. The question of the viability of the Joshua Intervenors as a class will be addressed by the Appellants. LRSD simply sees no legal impediment to its participation in the Court's prehearing conference program and then, if necessary, - seeking to have the District Court's Order affirmed on the merits of this appeal. 3 6. The proposed intervenors contend that the \"[t]he interests of the District and the community represented by the proposed intervenors cannot be ' served by regular school board elections.\" They argue that \"[t]he ballot box is an inadequate remedy in this case.\" Second Motion to Intervene, paragraph 24. The LRSD Board members are the elected representatives of the people. They are free to exercise all of the authority granted them under Arkansas law. The proposed intervenors do not accuse the Board of having acted illegally or beyond the scope of its authority, but only in a manner which the proposed intervenors consider to be \"contrary to interests of the District.\" There is no reason for this Court to determine who represents the interests of LRSD. The voters have already done ' that. If the proposed intervenors disagree with the legal actions of the LRSD Board of Directors, the ballot box provides not only an adequate remedy, but the only 'remedy. 7. In the absence of an alleged constitutional violation, the exercise of federal jurisdiction to limit or control a school board's legitimate exercise of its statutory authority also offends the right of the State of Arkansas to exercise governmental power through the creation of political subdivisions such as school districts. Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 US 161 (1907); See also, Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 US 105 (1967). 8. The proposed intervenors \"are not entitled to intervene based merely on the belief that their representatives on the School Board are not aggressively 4 defending the instant lawsuit.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407, 435 (W.D. La. 2004); citing United States v. Franklin Parish School Board, 47 F3d 755, 757 (5th Cir 1995). The proposed intervenors have not overcome the \"presumption that government institutions represent the interests of the public at large.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407 at 435; citing United States v. Louisiana, 90 F.R.D. 358, 363-364 (E. D. La. 1981). The Second Amended Motion to Intervene should be denied. WHEREFORE, LRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the Second Amended Motion to Intervene and grant it all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appelle~ ChriSt- ~~ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such fihng to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com Jess L.Askew[jaskew@williamsanderson.com] and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 6 - ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .  Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org July 31, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 LittleRock,AR 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III AUG -1 2007 OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 1~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott \u0026amp;sb\u0026amp;40P, M2wsx Qeperaj's Ptfiss STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna ., Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr; Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2007. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 31, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: \\ Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 J?:. ti Jq-c_, Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW .r AUG -1 2007 (fRCEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATIOU MOr.rmruNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions - of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year: 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 ' Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to this budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 41 34, Ex. 1. Case: 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain . essage-Id:\u0026lt;963593@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; w ee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/31/2007 3:54 PM CDT and filed on 7/31/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4135 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared .uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4135,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005709 Docket Text: ORDER, the Honorable Andree Roaf is Appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring . The ODM'S Proposed 2006-2007 Budget is accepted and effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/31/07 . (dac) 4:82 - cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: a 1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@rnbbwi.com 9 hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@rnbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . ~om Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office .Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610  ames M. Llewellyn , Jr hompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 'lliam P . Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902- 0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description : Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/31/2007] [FileNumber=963592-0] [3c22accd0728a391213cb920e00ab7b73lae8a76e918889d7234b31538af24e74d7955929890362 c0399ab5lfd9facf067fl3f95eaa90381233bl2a05c958c5b]J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AMENDED ORDER RECEIVED AUG - 2 2007 (ffCEQF rnDllM! IISHRBlllOII IOIITunma PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 \\ Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 4134, Ex. 1. Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain - ~~age-Id: \u0026lt;964503@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82 - cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this f i rst viewing.U . S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8 / 1 / 2007 3:33 PM CDT and filed on 8/1/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26 / 1998 Document Number : 4138 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http://ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ show_case_ doc?4138 , 26052 , ,MAGIC,, , 20057l9 Docket Text : AMENDED ORDER since the LRSD has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets re [4135) Order Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 8/1/07. (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com a hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net - hristopher J . Heller heller@fec . net, brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark TerrY'.Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John ,Clayburn Fend l ey, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building .323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr A Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. W ?ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 18 95 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. st Office Box 818 rt Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document (s) are as s ociated with this trans action : Document description : Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=8/l / 2007] [FileNumber=964502-0) [559cf8fcaldbd9b7a 9dc60la8clffd8f9596dfc3b78205332flf93ea5544b2418b9f6189ce49all 87122c48809a7b52ba74dff4edfe772albbf7e20cb05ad9le)] \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ir--- FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OISTRICT ARKANSAS  AUG 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Cowt's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Dep;ll'tment of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project  Management Tool for August 2007. \\ 1~1- General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 RECEIVED AUG 3 O 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ''\"\";\"1'\"' ,;' ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Marlc Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes. Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-151 0 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams,. Selig,. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201. J~~ C Smith I  Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:59 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8/30/2007 at 4:59 PM CDT and filed on 8/30/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski.Cty School, et al . Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department.of Education WARNING~ CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number:-4140 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing AD E's Project Management. Tool for August 2007 by Arkansas-Department of Education (available in paper format only). (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to:_ Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 8/3 1/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated. with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=8/30/2007] [FileNumber=986709-0] [638fbf95750fdb2bcc38d438al 759982e6393219filca65cfc6afbfedl 6b241432el 9 4ccf6c1097234311a6eab7650d2f8c784aed51ed8blcdlae3ed31fac7cel]] 8/31/2007 Page 2 of2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1764","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), motion to refer to mediator, and corrected certificates of service.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-04/2007-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","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_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"}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":2,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":4,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":0,"total_count":37,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":35},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":37},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":37},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","hits":37},{"value":"Project management","hits":37},{"value":"School districts","hits":36},{"value":"Joshua intervenors","hits":29},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":27},{"value":"African Americans--Education","hits":23},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":22},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":20},{"value":"School integration","hits":20}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":37},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":37},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":37},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":37},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2003","hits":9},{"value":"2004","hits":6},{"value":"2005","hits":6},{"value":"2006","hits":6},{"value":"2007","hits":6},{"value":"2002","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"2002","max":"2007","count":37,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"judicial records","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}