{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1755","title":"Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management 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":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Students","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management 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/1755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj\" } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. \"-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul\"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLT\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t\u0026lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 \"\" EXHIBIT I A B. C. 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.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?\". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be \"completed\" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- --- -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- - r -i\"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ ., - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.\u0026lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f\u0026lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE\u0026lt; i -- -- --- , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_ - j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions: Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies. Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners. Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices. To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02 II II II II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II II II -- -- \\ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - - I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - \u0026amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r \" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 (\u0026lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r\u0026lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF --='~0/~BY ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 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_1790","title":"Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the 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, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Middle schools","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Finance","Students","School facilities","Educational planning","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the 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/1790"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion of October 22, 2002, for approval of middle school site; District Court, plaintiff's response to the Court's letter regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) statement in support of middle school in Maumelle; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; 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. EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR . TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA SI EVERS HARRIS ISAAC A . SCOTT, JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SU ITE 2300 GORDON S. RATHER , JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER , JR. CHARLESL . SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj . com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROb6R D. ROWE Writ er ' s Direct Dial No . 501 -212 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj . com JOHN D . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 4, 2003 J, MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HAN COCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLIN GS WI LLIAM STUART JACK SON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LAN CAST ER JUDY ROB INSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M . MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M . SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALL EN CIIRI STIN E J. DA l.i (jllEK T , rt1 I\u0026gt; MI CHELLE M KA F.MMER LIN(.; ERIKA ROS S SCOTT ANDREW I RB Y MICHELLE HARGI S DILLARD PATRICK 0 . WILSON lii.:cmsr:d co pl7f,tic:t: ht:10~ tht: Unirt:d Stares Patt:nt and Trad~marJ.: O!1h-r: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No. : 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: In response to the Court's letter of January 28 , 2003 , I enclose a courtesy copy of the supplement to PCSSD motion of October 22, 2002 for approval of middle school site. The original has been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW ):\u0026gt;ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION OF OCTOBER 22, 2002 FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCS SD for: its supplement to motion, states: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has posed certain questions to the parties in this case regarding issues associated with the proposed new middle school. The numbered paragraphs set forth below correspond to the Court's letter of January 28, 2003. At the outset, it is instructive to note that what the District's desegregation plan states with respect to a middle school in Maumelle is simply that: An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built. Exhibit A reflects updated student population data gleaned both from census data and enrollment record. 395608-vl 1. As a starting point, it should be recalled that the M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in the receiving district at the next organizational level, particularly when interdistrict schools are available to them. Accordingly, as explained in its October motion, the PCSSD looks first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. 79 of those students currently attend Oak Grove Junior High, a rather significant number given that the new middle school was - conceived to replace the overcrowded Oak Grove facility which offers no special inducements for interdistrict transfer. It should also be noted that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton lnterdistrict School through the 5th grade. The seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school are not limited to Little Rock students but include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. For instance, of the 79 students referred to in Paragraph 1, 26 of those students are from North Little Rock. Further, the principal junior high magnet school in Little Rock, Mann, is both being rebuilt and historically has never had sufficient room to house all Little Rock black students seeking education at a magnet junior high or middle school. 395608-vl 2 2. Both. Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs, Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Obviously, since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle - middle school. 3. Please see response to question no. 2. Also, efforts will be made to recruit M-to- M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7m grade). Parents of 4m, sm, and 6m grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4m and 5m grade Clinton M-to-M students, and 7m grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations. Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process 395608-vl 3 at the proposed middle school. Parents of 4 m and 5m grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the proposed middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementaries), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. Yes. 6. Yes. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will be asked to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, evaluating whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will essentially follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to Judge Wright with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle 395608-vl 4 school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. It had previously approved the conversion of the Jacksonville Junior High Schools to middle schools. By 2003-2004, the PCSSD will be in its 5th year of operating middle schools and Maumelle would be the last to be implemented. 395608-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ue~ Jones III (76060) A~neys for Pulaski Cou~ S ool Districy - ------- 5 pecial CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 4, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 395608-vl 6 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West -Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 CENSUS DATA FOR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED CRYSTAL HILL/MAUMELLE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2004-2005 The U.S. Census Bureau reported **2,246 children between the ages of 4 to 18 years old residing in the Maumelle Urban Cluster area for the year 2000. Data for school aged children ** 11 to 15 was reported at 749 for the same year. Age groupings **4 to 15 were listed at 1,880. Refer to Table 1 for individual age numbers. Table 1: Single Age Numbers for Maumelle Urban Cluster 2000 Census 4 156 5 142 6 151 7 161 8 169 9 175 10 177 11 141 12 166 13 139 14 150 15 153 16 132 17 133 18 101 EXHIBIT A Based on the 2002-2003 first quarter PCSSD enrollment figures ***1,643 elem~ntary students - attend PCSSD schools in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area. This total is comprised of ***581 (34%) elementary age black students and ***1062 (66%) white students. The projected rate of enrollment growth for the proposed Crystal Hill/Maumelle area middle school for 2004-2005 is estimated to be ***662 students (Based on 2000 U.S. Census of *4.6% growth projections). Tables 2, 3 and 4 depict middle school growth projections . . Table 2: 6th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 66 34 126 66 192 2003-2004 85 34 162 66 247 2004-2005 85 44 109 56 194 Table 3: 7th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 57 41 81 59 138 2003-2004 69 34 132 66 201 2004-2005 89 34 169 34 258 Table 4: 8th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students 2002-2003 38 31 2003-2004 60 49 2004-2005 72 34 Sources: *Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Advancement **U.S. Census Bureau Profile of Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic Area: Maumelle, AR Urban Cluster ***First Quarter 2002-2003 Student Enrollment Pulaski County Special School District 83 85 138 Percent Total 69 121 59 145 69 210 IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION 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 RECE FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S LETTER REGARDING PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby responds in tum to each numbered question in the Court's letter of January 28, 2003 regarding the PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site: Question: Is interest in M-to-M transfers within LRSD's African-American communities sufficient to justify reserving a certain number of seats for M-to-M students at the Maumelle school? How do LRSD and PCS SD propose to ascertain that level of interest? 1. Yes. The LRSD agrees with PCS SD that it is reasonable to judge the prospective interest of its students in transferring to a new Maumelle Middle School based on the number of LRSD students currently attending the elementary schools that will feed the new Maumelle Middle School, the number of those students that traditionally continue in the PCS SD system following elementary school and attend Oak Grove Junior High and the number ofLRSD students who choose for the first time to transfer to the PCSSD for junior high/middle school. Question: Will PCSSD, LRSD, or both school districts assume responsibility for student recruitment? 2. Both. The LRSD has traditionally initiated most M-to-M transfers of LRSD students to the PCSSD. Once they are in the PCSSD system, the PCSSD has assumed responsibility for keeping them as they move to the next organizational level. The LRSD does - not intend to in any way to guarantee to fill any number of seats reserved for M-to-M transfers by the PCSSD. Question: What are the details of and timeline for the recruitment plan? 3. LRSD students are provided information annually about M-to-M transfer opportunities. The LRSD's two parent recruiters provide parents with their M-to-M options when LRSD parents are seeking information at the LRSD's Student Registration Office. They may also take LRSD parents on tours of PCS SD schools eligible to accept an M-to-M transfer. Question: What persons and resources will be assigned to M-to-M recruitment? 4. See Response to Question No. 3. The LRSD expends these resources promoting M-to-M transfers by LRSD students even though the \"Pooling Agreement\" (Settlement Agreement, Section II, paragraph 0) as interpreted by the District Court creates a financial disincentive for the LRSD to undertake these activities. Question: Will LRSD give PCS SD recruiters full access to students and parents through - LRSD schools? 5. Yes. Question: Will transportation provided by LRSD be adequate to facilitate the transfer of students? 6. Yes, for as long as it is paid for by the State of Arkansas. Question: What unique, attractive programs will PCSSD put in place at the Maumelle school to attract M-to-M students from LRSD? 7. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. Question: What steps will PCSSD take to ensure that the Maumelle school reflects the \"middle school concept\" in terms of facility design, academic programs, and staffing? 8. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. 2 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 6 -----.. lf2e__ _:::\u0026gt; / // BY: ' . ___ .. . ---~ / ChristopherHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on February 4, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 ------- ~ ~ / / ./ -\u0026gt; '/ __. ,. t Af4i --. -~ Christophe~ 3 r ~' 'f/.1 rv- I\"' ! 1 , ,::-.) A31(-,f;_'. ht.j !J, '' I-, ~..:. 'J , .. ; r A, .\".i''r Fr:: u \u0026lt;Iv-JV\u0026lt;/.\\ -~-P,. 0 \"' s .1 .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU[ 1M.s vv \"' i00J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS r.___ 1 \"-CO/ WESTERN DIVISION - - - ---~ _. ~ r::.i.:??:,: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RE\u0026amp;itW=ED .:,.:-:-:.~, . FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL IN MAUMELLE The North Little Rock School District has a significant number of African-American students attending school in the Pulaski County School District, particularly at the Oak Grove Junior and Senior High Schools. It is our understanding that, upon completion of a middle school in Maumelle, the Oak Grove facility will be reconfigured as a grade 9 - 12 high school and that the middle school will replace the remaining grades currently in the Oak Grove Junior High School. The creation of a middle school in Maumelle will extend the educational opportunities and choices presently available to the North Little Rock School District African-American children through majority-to-minority transfers. Past experience has shown that a new facility is a substantial factor in attracting students. We would expect this to hold true in this instance as well. Therefore, the North Little Rock School District believes the construction of a new middle school in Maumelle would enhance the attractiveness of the PCSSD District attractive to North Little Rock School District African American students. By: -, -ste en W. Jones 3400 TCBY Towe\"'- 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served on all counsel of record as listed below this 4th day of February, 2003 Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 2 - Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 I \\North Linlc Rock School Oistric1 0001\\0cscgrcgation Mauers 0002\\PLEADING\\NLRSD S1a~m:111 or Suppon :-..11ddlc School r.. taunidlc 02 03 03 wpd C, ; ~ ILCt.,. ~ -\u0026lt; ...,.,._ /J.A..._ 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 MOTION RE PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL The PCS SD for its motion, states: RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is periodically plagued with standing water. The PCSSD believes that this problem can be remedied during the summer when school is out. 2. In the meantime, the PCSSD desires permission to lease a portable building for use as a temporary band room until the end of the current school year. 3. The PCS SD does not believe there is actually anything within the four comers of Plan 2000 requiring that this matter be presented to the Court. However, under the predecessor plan, the PCSSD pledged to eliminate portable buildings and to replace them with permanent construction. It did so. 4. Accordingly, lest any person question the current motives of the PCSSD, it seeks an order of this Court granting it permission to lease a portable building for use as a 397582-v1 band room until the end of this school year. Such a lease will not constitute an expansion of the capacity of Sylvan Hills Middle School. 5. Personnel from the PCS SD have made contact with representatives of the other parties in this case and undersigned counsel is therefore authorized to state that no party has voiced an objection to the relief sought in this motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an order granting it permission to lease a portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School for use as a temporary band room until the conclusion of the current school year and for all proper relief. 397582-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 12, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 397582-vl Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 M.Samu~~( 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2003 DESEGRE GjjfbiE OF MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua resolved this matter with school district officials on or about February 10, 2003 . Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors do not oppose the Motion of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50 58 50 CERTIFI I do hereby state that a copy oft record on this24th day of February, 2003 . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -.1 .::..:,_' -::- - - .. -~ ~S.:--- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIF1~-=-=--~-~-------.:::::-~:'\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions C of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2003 . ~~-t:~;~~itn~ JG~~~;~~-~-;::~~~t~bjbrti1,~t,i;~gr~ri!r J8;fig ~~fcui~tedu,e B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED MAR - 3 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management - Tool for February 2003. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on February 27, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~z Colette D. Honorable 2 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_121","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2003-01/2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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/121"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["302 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nr.-.rl fl\"'- EA~ l: .,: .. ,, :r- .. '\"'4 ft\"\u0026gt; f) ~ / / i-.'\n', I. ' 1' \n 1:h\n ~ 1,r-..\nt~~':tr JAN v\nNSA.s JA Mc: I 3 0 2DDJ 8 '--s 'V I IN THE y_ . /li!cccRt ' 1 ~1ACfc\nUNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT CLERF( EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for January 2003. RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General c~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on January 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~~ Colette D. Honorable IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 1.,11r,i1.1111ia1111i11111!,11ri1~!1i111iiisiffli'y1 ~ 1 ~ 9 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 January 31, 2003 111:~i~iiis!~W(/~il~,f:!\nIJ!ii~e\n2j~Be'f\n~i!'[26b2/J6e ADE cajctlated C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 i~~i,i,~:~~~lf1\n~:2'602\n~:at~msnm,hs of State -EqJafiz'atiof\nF uri~ing t or.:F51 02103 fi'.:!I~Iiiu.1'~5!~'\n''.'.'p.f.'.''.'.\n?f#.I\n:,,:ggy'.~tif~tio~ ' f\nyndiQQ AalslJlaJ~d for FY 02/03 at D~.~iT:ib~f ~J) i0P2/ subjecl.t.o periodic adjustments, Were as follows: D. 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 January 31, 2003 Based-06n the-1nfom,at1on available0the ADE calculated at December 31, 2002 for FY 02/03, subject to penod1c adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 ltr.l:it~il:isl~tli~i!i!~f~l1i,\\~\u0026amp;\nq~1~~~~f !f ~~f :~t~~~t1~!~i~ the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 ~~~~~:it\n~~~:l%~:~iar~\nit:~1~1fj\nB~,f~~--2a1culatecliit. becem-beF 31\"/ 2002 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 Distribuuoris f p(i=Y62JQ3 at December ::H\n'26b2, totaled $5,454,033.Allotment ailtuiated-fo(FY 02/03 Was $12\n30~, 754 sLhject to periodic adjustmehts'. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 o,sW6utraff$\nJof:Jixnt~10:t'at::oe\ne~Hi'tief'.a11\n2.002.wetr f:h.:d~.~tfi9:!{p'e:t::21~:\ns~tsPi'a.te'.dJoFE\nXQ2(03~aro~c~'mB'g{~j~'2~i62~\ngqsJeC((o]Wiff6~rc a ius mE!n_ s\n:.w.erE!_: J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In September 2002, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 01/02 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In September 2002, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At October 31, 2002, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $1 ,226,542.00 NLRSD - $234,500.00 PCSSD - $652,924.48 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2 ,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD- 8\nNLRSD- 2\nPCSSD- 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education , the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. ~t\n1i~,i:1igi'il~i~~~ili~:\nil!1\n~~l!l!~~B.\\~l~\\i~::~~!\n~~::~~~\n=.J1_1\n~~ Moms/ ADE l\n.~adl\nlarih~iJor Des~gi'egatiori,iipqafoifthe gr9i.ip on all relevant Wit]f jltttlili11l!llt!,ilt~f ii 1m 7i~~t~~~ 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In Oct9ber 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review _that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points . regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings betwe_en the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. ii1t~~i~1[\n~~~\nL!tf~\u0026amp;~i~~-1J~:~~~lr~~bi~ii\\t~:\n1jvlewecFand appr9v.~d 34 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 sc~ools were completed , and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development tra ining class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative , \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students) , 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled 'Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 4 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum , assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11 -21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan . The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACT AAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11 , 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (ie., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training . On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". 92iR1is.N.ID~,~:r::19,~':1~iI?.DP?-, iliJi:~?ffa' Y.Y?rkifakP::~1~vestiga..tioQ' rr.,N~mber, lllll!i!l!li~l~i!l}!fi!1:,:n CIIJlf\u0026amp;t}lilv!r 55 VII . TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach , the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 59 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2003 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 T\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1744","title":"Notice of appeal and notice of filing Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool and court order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget from 2002-2003.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-01"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Finance","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Notice of appeal and notice of filing Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool and court order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget from 2002-2003."],"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/1744"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["100 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN - 3 200!' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN, # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2081 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on December 30, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2002 i1~i~:~~11~~~~tiil{f~1l~il~~;~~:~r~i~,r.~'1g:~~~l.iV~~:f jif~~~;~icW~tg~ ' 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 DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JAN -8 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER ru .... c:u U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKNJSAS JAN - 7 20G3 ~~:MES \\N. McCORMAC:(, CLER:-': PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the proposed 2002-2003 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Though both LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors filed \"Responses\" which aired concerns about the budget, no specific objections were made by either party. 'I hereby approve the proposed budget as submitted. I am mindful that there may be a motion to adjust OD M's final budget for 2002-2003 following determination of the appeal of my order granting LRSD partial unitary status. ODM's goal should be to submit a proposed budget for 2003-2004 by May 1, 2003, so that I may approve the budget before the 2003-2004 budget cycle begins. If my Order on unitary status is affirmed on appeal, ODM should work with all parties, prior to submission of the proposed 2003 -2004 budget, to develop a more equitable means of apportioning LRSD's share of the cost ofODM. ft; IT IS SO ORDERED this day of January, 2003. \"i 7 2 FILED EAsTMR\\ g,srn,cT COURT ISTR/CT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS B~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS JAN - 9 2003 INTER VENO RS OFFICE OF INTER VENO RS DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.' s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. t.~ll-~ Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Respectfully submitted, /Jh.101~ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 CF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 7th day ofJ anuary, 2002. JliJiJu.~ FILED IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 3 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW / JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, et al. .MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2003 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Joshua's request for an extension of the deadline for filing a supplemental pleading on the issues raised in their Response to Motion Regarding Site Selection at Maumelle is granted, and Joshua has until noon Monday, January 27, 2003, within which to file this response (or the potential agreed order referenced in Joshua's letter of this date). (\\c\\ IT IS SO ORDERED this ]Zday of January, 2003. - UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o~;J..J~Sj,\" Am~ ~:~p 728 RECEIVED :~- FILED U S DISTRICT COURT JAN 3 0 2003 ': a: EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES'OISTRICT COURT JAN 18 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK ,By: DEP CLERK '-, 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. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court is hereby informed that counsel for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Joshua lntervenors submit the following agreement with - respect to the Harris Redesign and Sherwood Rezoning: 1. The parties agree that the redesign of Harris Elementary School is consistent with the School District's plan and commitment not to close schools that are located in predominately African American areas. 2. The PCSSD Enrollment Count for October 1, 2001-2002 indicates a decline of 484 students. According to the First Quarter 2002-2003 Enrollment Report student enrollment declined from the first quarter of 2002-2003 to the second quarter of 2002-2003 by 209 students. Harris is a predominately African American School with a declining enrollment. Its racial percentage for the 2002-2003 school year is approximately 69% African American and 31% Caucasian. The proposed reassignment of African American students will increase the African American student enrollment from 394491 -v1 1 69% to 78%. African American students fron, Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). 3. The parties agree that working toward a racially balanced student body is an appropriate goal for Harris Elementary School, and is consistent with Plan 2000. 4. These parties agree that PCSSO shall vigorously recruit minority students (white) from North of the river for placement in the Harris Elementary School. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education who will report to the Assistant Superintendent of Equity and Pupil Services shall direct this intensification of effort. Timely reports regarding monitoring activities will be sent to Joshua lntervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The parties agree to the establishment for the Harris Elementary School of a standing \"recruitment committee\". The committee will provide documentation of their efforts to the Director of Equity and Multicultural Education. One of the recruitment activities efforts will be to partner Harris with Sherwood schools for exchange activities and to provide desegregative experiences for students attending Harris Elementary. 6. PCSSD will vigorously recruit white students North of the river to attend Harris Elementary School. Recruitment will include but not be limited to the following: transportation will be provided, approximately 50 percent of the seats for the four year old, and before and after school programs will be allocated for white students electing to attend Harris. The recruiters explain the educational advantages of attending Harris to parents who are being recruited. 394491-v1 2 7. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education will closely work with Real Estate Agents, government and community organizations, PTA and PTO's to recruit and provide information about the Harris Specialty Program. 8. PCSSD will locate staff development offerings to showcase the Harris program. 9. It is the objective of the redesign and rezoning plan to a) maintain educational presence in the affected area; b) improve the educational quality of offerings made available in that area; c) help racially balance the other schools in the Northern section of Pulaski County; d) reduce the disparate transportation burdens upon African American students; and e) attract students from home schooling and private schools back to District schools in the Sherwood area. It is expected that these - enrollment percentages will not substantially affect Clinton Elementary School in part because it is an interdistrict school where the ratios are substantially fixed. 10. The projected enrollment at Harris Elementary School will be a minimum of 200 students for the 2003-2004 school year and thereafter; and that present plans will allow a substantially greater enrollment if student demand, after appropriate recruitment efforts, increases. It is the objective of the parties to continue to review the racial balances within the school to maintain racial balances within Harris Elementary School. A primary method for achieving this objective will be to promote the rich and challenging curriculum that the district intends for this school will set it apart from the other schools similarly situated. 11. The parties agree that some faculty changes will be required. A concerted - and sustained effort will be made to provide the students with a racially diverse staff. 394491 -v1 3 12. The parties commit, in the manner provided by the Revised Desegregation Plan, to resolve their matters to the extent possible before either party seeks court review of any differences they have between them regarding Harris Elementary School issues. With these considerations in mind, it is the recommendation of the parties by their counsel that the Court enter this proposal as an order of the Court. Accordingly, having concluded a hearing, the Court approves the PCSSD motion dated December 16, 2002 (doc. no. 3719), as amended and supplemented by the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 12. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AN~~CP ON/:-J..K-03 B \u0026lt;) 394491-v1 ,___ ___ - --- - UNITED STATES DI RICT JUDGE , .--i,9-1)3 DATE 4 I:,,\\ t: :; 'i\u0026gt; !r.,.U,- f; S1f..J..:(' / h ' ! ,. , '7-l_)e. ..,. . ..'),j ., .. . \u0026lt;:u._,,)r JAN .,_, ,v,11;,)~SA.s JAA 3 0 2DOJ 8 ,v,Es l'V ' IN THE Y: fv,ccc RMAc UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT f(, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, 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 AD E's Project Management - Tool for January 2003. RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General G~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on January 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~{Q_ Colette D. Honorable IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2003 1111~- . ~~~iflt~m~;;~~i11111~;;.i~k,i.\u0026amp;1'.1~~r.im~q~l~!.tj 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_137","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-11/2002-12"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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/137"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["437 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 2 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ALtt:L DENNIS R. HANSEN, # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2081 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on November 26, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 :~li.l ~eE~llff~~~~~:ii~~~,::~a-~~~~,~cql~~~lfi~ 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 November 30, 2002 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 D. 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 November 30, 2002 FBYas,,~~d~~R::::it:~ti~e~ i1n~f.8}\\@!g\na~ifJ.\":3fqfif'.faigV\n'a~ila6I.'i'. t '\"\"''A ilti\ne.c atd.ti,la f~l\nf\na:t,, d c.k .i ~..:f,3 , f ~ tot fhc c .c\n, , E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, _2002 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 c~1$imtedJqf e\ny OZJQ:$. $(ibf~'\\9pet@ti.c~ l4,!mi~bt~1 I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01/02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In September 2002, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 01/02 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. ritll~i:w!t~r-~~*i11.~,~~1i1r,1,,~1!wjit1:fiJ.1Fll 'ijfi(Ji.iUi~K0~ 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD- 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD- 2\nPCSSD- 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. 0 . Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that . are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary: The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. 34 VI. REM ED IA TION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and on site visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 36 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School .Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e. , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start'' Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 4 2 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled 'Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd -ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 59 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 62 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Apri\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_57","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-09/2002-10"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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/57"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["329 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nXVIII. WORK WITH THE PARTIES AND ODM TO DEVELOP PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADE'S MONITORING AND REPORTING OBLIGATIONS (Continued) On August 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan and see where there was disagreement. The LRSD requested sixty (60) days to respond to the review of the plan. The ADE gave the parties 60 days to review the plan and submit written responses to it. The next meeting date was scheduled for October 2, 2000, at the ADE. On October 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. LRSD submitted a list of items concerning technical assistance. The ADE will respond to the items in the next meeting scheduled for November 15, 2000, at 1 :30 PM in the ADE auditorium. On November 16, 2000 the parties rescheduled the regular meeting at the request of the LRSD. Responses to the LRSD were presented in accordance with the time frame outlined. ADE staff from the School Improvement and Professional Development Section were present to answer questions regarding responses. Representatives from the PCSSD presented a list of modifications at that time. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. On April 9, 2001 , the ADE Assistant Director for Accountability provided the State Board of Education with an update on the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting held on April 3, 2001 . The Board supported and approved the report. On June 26, 2001 , Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, attended the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, reported on the status of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. On September 14, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan, and to identify new and retiring members of the committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. in 303A at the ADE. On October 17, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues that had been brought up previously by the PCSSD were discussed. The next meeting is scheduled for November 27, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. On November 27, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues discussed included receiving a written response from the LRSD and the PCSSD with changes they want the ADE to include in the plan. Other issues dealt with technical assistance available through ORME and ACT for the three districts. In December, 2001 , the ADE made informal contacts with various committee members about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The next meeting with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan is scheduled for February 27, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. 1 56 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 A committee with in the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and final ize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 2 3 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: ( 1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. CJn April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) ll~~~tA%.f~~lii~ii~\\1i.JKl-~!iil~~~~~Y!tE.l~~@Br~Yt~w~~'iin~:~P.Rr.QY~~ 34 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ER IC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 51 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The N LRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11 , 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a 'workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on '.'Best- Practices in Social Studies'\\)t was presented to.the 4th grade teachers in thelittle Rock Sch6ol District, ihewbrkshop fpcus~d aroLlr}d tiiehve them~~ of-geograpt:Jy\\:1hdthe:s6cf~(studies (foorth'grade) framework/standards3 Several lntem:et web siles 'were shared with the ~tq_fo iullih~ graid~e sodic~1J~tt}1di1e~s .te~ttii::~e.ts a~nf!JintieIrn~t.~veI wtefbf si~te s: tfoir f:ou:rth\n: fJ:g~Jtu\n:f!s~c!~~i~i!v1~~l:1~1~~w!~iJ,rvice.workshop{\n,The 54 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SA T-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for train ing seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 62 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 63 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 64 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 65 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m. , in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 66 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. 67 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach , and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. 68 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD}, balance literacy training (PCSSD}, alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. 69 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service tra\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1749","title":"District court, motion to extend time, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings, motion for new trial or, motion for relief, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration, 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":["2002-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Arkansas","School integration","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Student activities","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["District court, motion to extend time, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings, motion for new trial or, motion for relief, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration, 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/1749"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["64 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion for relief from judgment of order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: RECEIVED SEP - 4 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. LRSD requests an additional forty-eight hours within which to respond to the Joshua Interventor's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" which was filed on August 29, 2002, but which LRSD received by mail on August 30, 2002. 2. LRSD requests additional time because of the number of issues raised by Joshua including new issues which could have been included in Joshua's August 19, 2002 submission. Without objection, the Joshua Intervenors previously received an extension of time of three days to file their \"Comments.\" 3. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has stated that he does not object to the extension of time requested by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests a forty-eight hour extension of the time within which they must file their response to Joshua's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" to and including September 5 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B~~ ~----- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on September 3, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker Via Fax \u0026amp; mail JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 2 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 BChristopherHe~li IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT~t,{4,:,... EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Dts-,.4g; c!;;t, WESTERNDIVISION J,q S[\"p ~~ SY.. Mf:s ~ 4f. 0 3 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT lr,t,_.f~TIFF I:.._\u0026gt;/ZlE:frl( V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL 1- j,r,--;_ () z_ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL lJ (LV} ~/) KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ~ ;/.;~;fr~ Ur c MOTION TO EXTEND Til\\.1E For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: Df2p C1_E:f?,r DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. LRSD requests an additional forty-eight hours within which to respond to the Joshua Interventor's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" which was filed on August 29, 2002, but which LRSD received by mail on August 30, 2002. 2. LRSD requests additional time because of the number of issues raised by Joshua including new issues which could have been included in Joshua's August 19, 2002 submission. Without objection, the Joshua Intervenors previously received an extension of time of three days to file their \"Comments.\" 3. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has stated that he does not object to the extension of time requested by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests a forty-eight hour extension of the time within which they must file their response to Joshua's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" to and including September 5 at 5:00 p.m. ,HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU.LE 58 Ai\\JD/OR 79(a) FRC ON G O '2.- 6 7 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S COMMENTS ON PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Good Faith and Monell. RECEIVED SEP - 6 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In assessing good faith, the LRSD believes that the Court should distinguish between the conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors (the \"Board\") and the conduct of individual employees, and the LRSD cited the Court to the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S . 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), which recognized this distinction for the purpose of establishing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Joshua argues that it is not appropriate to make this distinction because \"implementation falls to the day-to-day employees .. . . \" Joshua's Comments, p. 2. Joshua's argument is unpersuasive because the Revised Plan was an agreement between the Board and Joshua, and the issue is whether the Board substantially complied with the agreement. See Revised Plan 11. Revised Plan 2 contained the LRSD's core obligations. The statement of each specific obligation begins, \"The LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" See Revised Plan, 2. The Board decided the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented, and in certain instances by whom. For example, Revised Plan 2.6 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African- Americans in . . . extracurricular activities .. .. \" The Board met this obligation by implementing a policy assigning to school principals the responsibility for promoting participation and ensuring that there were no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities. See,~, CX 719, Policy JJIB-Rl (high schools) and R- 2 (middle schools) (\"When racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate.\"). Thus, the Revised Plan did not \"establish[] roles and responsibilities for LRSD representatives other than school board members .. . ,\" as Joshua contends. Rather, the Board assigned roles and responsibilities to its employees as a part of implementing the Revised Plan. See CX 719. The fact that the \"day-to-day\" implementation of the Revised Plan fell to the Board's employees does not distinguish Monell. That was the precise question that Monell addressed: when should an governmental entity, like the Board, be held liable under 1983 for the tortuous conduct of its employees. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1298, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). Similarly, even if the Court finds violations of the Revised Plan,1 the Court must decide whether the Board should be held accountable for those violations. Monell provides the Court a ready framework for making that decision. Monell also cannot be distinguished because it deals with a finding ofliability, rather than implementation of a remedy. See Joshua's Comments, p. 2. The LRSD does not cite Monell for the purpose of establishing the governing legal standard. The common question in Monell and the present case is to what extent should a governmental entity be held accountable for the acts of its employees. Monell provides guidance in answering that question. Finally, to the extent Joshua contends that the Board guaranteed that no employee would commit an act of racial discrimination, the Revised Plan does not support that contention. The 1The LRSD does not concede that Joshua came forward with evidence to establish any violations of the Revised Plan. 2 Board agreed to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" Revised Plan, 2.1. In an organization the size of the LRSD, there will be employees who make bad decisions, some in good faith and maybe some not in good faith. All the Board can do is adopt policies and take reasonable steps to ensure its employees comply with those policies. That is what the Board agreed to do under the Revised Plan, and the evidence clearly established that it lived up to that agreement. II. Castaneda Joshua's reliance on Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1282, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (I 977), is misplaced. 1n that case, the Supreme Court stated, \"Because of the many facets of human motivation, it would be unwise to presume as a matter of law that human beings ofone definable group will not discriminate against other members of their group.\" Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1282, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). The LRSD has not asked the Court to make such a presumption. The evidence before this Court differs materially from the evidence before the Supreme court in Castaneda. That case concerned a challenge to the Texas system for selecting grand juries through the use of grand jury commissioners. The plaintiff used statistical evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Mexican-Americans. Id. at 496. This shifted the burden to the State of Texas \"to dispel the inference of intentional discrimination. Inexplicably, the State introduced practically no evidence.\" Id. at 497-98. The Supreme Court noted that the State failed to produce any evidence \"about the way in which the commissioners operated and their reasons for [selecting persons for the grand jury lists].\" Id. at 500. In the present case, Joshua failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the LRSD. While Joshua presented evidence showing a small number of African-Ameri'can 3 AP English teachers at Central High School, no evidence was presented of the \"degree of underrepresentation.\" Id. at 494. This required evidence comparing the proportion of AfricanAmerican English teachers who had the training required to teach AP courses2 and who requested to teach AP courses3 with the proportion of African-American AP teachers. Id. Joshua failed to present evidence establishing the proportion of African-American English teachers with the training required to teach AP courses, and no African-American English teacher at Central festified that his or her request to teach AP courses had been denied. Even Dr. Faucette admitted on cross-examination that he had never requested to teach AP, despite his direct testimony that he had been denied the opportunity to do so. See Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 177 and 215-16. Moreover, even assuming that Joshua had come forward with the necessary proof and that the degree of underrepresentation was sufficient to create an inference of intentional discrimination, see id. at 495-96, the LRSD, unlike the State of Texas, provided a race-neutral explanation for the small number of African-American English AP teachers at Central: the labor agreement with - the District's teachers, which requires consideration of factors such as experience, education and seniority in making teaching assignments. See Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 90 and 218-19. Finally, this Court need not presume that LRSD's African-American administrators would not engage in racial discrimination because the LRSD presented evidence to they would not. Dr. Lacey testified that the District's secondary principals would not accept or condone racial discrimination within their schools. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 803-05 . See also Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 85-86 (racial discrimination not acceptable at J .A. Fair), pp. 122-123 (racial discrimination not acceptable at Hall); Tr. July 23, 2002, 522 (teachers treat black and white students the same at McClellan). Similarly, Sadie Mitchell testified that principals fulfilled their responsibility to identify and eliminate barriers to African-American participation in extra- 216 2Specialized training is required to teach AP courses. See Tr. July 23, 2002, p. 518. 3Teachers are asked each year to request teaching assignments. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 4 curricular activities. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262. More generally, the Court heard evidence of the administration 's commitment to complying with the Revised Plan and to working in the best interest of all students. See, U, Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 189 and 191 (\"We talked a great deal about how to embed the plan in the work of the District, so it became the work of the District, and not something sitting over to the side that was layered on top of what people normally did.\") Therefore, this Court has a sufficient evidentiary foundation to conclude that LRSD's AfricanAmerican administrators would not discriminate against African-American students or teachers.4 See Coates v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, 1982 WL 285 *53 (N.D. Ill. 1982). Joshua next purports to provide the Court examples of \"objective\" violations of the Revised Plan not cured by the fact that the decision maker was African-American. Each of these alleged violations will be discussed in tum. First, Joshua asserts that the Revised Plan obligated the LRSD \"to ensure\" no racial discrimination in student discipline and this, in tum, obligated the LRSD to investigate the cause - of the racial disparity in student discipline. See Joshua's Comments, p. 3. Joshua then pulls out of context a single sentence from the testimony of Dr. Linda Watson to purportedly establish a violation of these obligations. 1n fact, the Revised Plan did not obligate the LRSD to investigate the racial disparity in student discipline. See LRSD's Proposed Findings, p. 56. The LRSD agreed to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" Revised Plan 2.5. In this instance, the procedure to be implemented was also agreed to by the parties. The LRSD was to \"strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner.\" Revised Plan 2.5 .1. This is 4Joshua makes much of the fact that Central's Principal Rudolph Howard was not called to testify at trial. The LRSD disagrees that Howard's testimony was necessary. The anecdotal evidence concerning Central falls far short of that necessary to establish institutional discrimination. See Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 806 (1998). Moreover, Joshua's general objections and Judge Wright 's refusal to allow the LRSD to conduct meaningful discovery (See Tr. October 2, 2001 , Docket No. 3503) made it extremely difficult for the LRSD to anticipate Joshua's witnesses before the parties simultaneous submission of their witness lists. 5 what the LRSD did, and it provides context for Dr. Watson's testimony that, \"I can't say we were looking at it based on race. We were looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as any other students, [ could) participate in.\" Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 163.5 The LRSD never agreed to reduce or eliminate the racial disparity in student discipline, and Joshua's attempt to read such a requirement into the Revised Plan cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the agreement. Second, Joshua asserts that the Revised Plan \"promised affirmative action\" to increase African-American participation in extracurricular activities. See Joshua's Comments, p. 3. If Joshua contends that the Revised Plan required an \"affirmative action\" program with regard to extracurricular activities, the Revised Plan clearly contained no such requirement. Revised Plan 2.6 required the LRSD \"to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in ... extracurricular activities.\" The LRSD's obligation to promote - participation cannot reasonably be construed as an obligation to create an affirmative action program. To the extent Joshua means that the LRSD was to actively work to encourage participation and eliminate barriers, the LRSD did this. To establish the alleged violation of this obligation, Joshua argues Sadie Mitchell \"had the lead responsibility\" for implementation of this obligation, but that her approach was to \"wait for complaints.\" See Joshua's Comments, 3-4. The record does not support Joshua's premise. As discussed above, the Board assigned responsibility for monitoring this obligation to school principals. The LRSD's witnesses all agreed on this point. See,~' Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 136. Joshua concludes that Mitchell had \"lead responsibility\" because she supervised the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, 5 As Dr. Watson explained, the LRSD attempted to provide programs to help all students in need, not just African-American students. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the LRSD to provide these programs to only African-American students. To exclude non-African-American students because of their race would in fact violate the Revised Plan's requirement that there be \"no discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan 2.5 . 6 Dr. Lacey, who supervised secondary school principals.6 As to her actual responsibility, Mitchell testified: Q. You are aware. Let's just talk about the reality. You were aware -- you have not heard the testimony. But you are aware, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the Mind, various activities were all white, were you not? A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop a plan for changing that? A. I did not develop a plan. The building principal did. Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua Intervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patterns? A. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complaint. Q. You are not suggesting that you only prepared requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? A. I only respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua, OD Ms, and anybody else, through fonnal complaints. Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262 (emphasis supplied). Mitchell's testimony was entirely consistent with District policy. Secondary principals were responsible for resolving complaints about extracurricular activities. See, ~ ex 719, Policy JJIB-Rl (high schools) and R-2 (middle schools) (\"When racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate.\"). The Handbooks provided that students or parents not satisfied with the principal's resolution of their complaint could appeal to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services or the Associate Superintendent for School Services, and then to the Superintendent. See ex 670, p. 3. Nothing about this process violated the Revised Plan. 6Following this reasoning, the Superintendent had \"lead responsibility\" because he supervised Mitchell. 7 Moreover, the implicit assumption in Joshua's argument is that the Revised Plan required proportional representation of African-Americans in all extracurricular activities. The plain language of the Revised Plan invalidates this assumption. It called for encouraging participation and removing barriers to participation so activities would be open to all interested students. See Revised Plan, 2.6. Nothing required the LRSD to manufacture interest or establish quotas for the sake ofracial balance. Revised Plan 2.12.2 required the LRSD to develop remedies to racial disparities in activities \"where appropriate.\" Thus, the Revised Plan acknowledged that not all racial disparities in activities require a remedy. No remedy would be appropriate, for example, where the racial disparity results solely from individual student choices. In a related argument, Joshua contends that the Revised Plan required the District to investigate the racial disparity in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. This contention ignores the fact that Revised Plan 2.6 applies to \"qualified\" African-Americans. Joshua presented no evidence as to the proportion of qualified African-Americans at Hall from which it could be determined whether there was a racial disparity. Moreover, it is not true that \"there is no claim or evidence of an LRSD study of possible barriers . . . \" As quoted above, Mitchell testified that principals had this responsibility, and she believed they fulfilled that responsibility. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262 Next, Joshua contends that the LRSD's use of activity accounts to address financial barriers violated Revised Plan 2.6. See Joshua's Comments, p. 4. The implicit assumption in this argument is that the LRSD agreed to eliminate every barrier to participation. That is not true. The LRSD agreed to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed ... to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . .. extracurricular activities.\" See Revised Plan 2.6 ( emphasis supplied) and Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 775. Joshua argues that the process developed by the LRSD for addressing financial barriers to participation was inadequate, but there is no factual basis for this argument. There was no 8 evidence that a single student was denied participation in an extracurricular activity due to a financial barrier. Later in its Comments, Joshua argues that a financial barrier caused a reduction in the African-American enrollment in the University Studies Program at Hall. Joshua's Comments, p. 8. While it is a fact that students must pay tuition to UALR to participate in the program, it is pure speculation to conclude that this caused the decline in African-American enrollment in the second year of the program. See Final Report, p. 46. There was no evidence that a single student was denied admission to the program because he or she was unable to pay the tuition. To Dr. Lacey's knowledge, only one student had sought financial assistance to participate in the program, and the District was able to solicit a private donation to pay the tuition for that student. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. See also Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 268 (Mitchell testified that she had used money from her budget to buy instruments for students in need). Finally, Joshua argues that the way in which Rudolph Howard assigned AP English - teachers at Central showed bad faith in violation of Revised Plan 2. I. As discussed above, the evidence presented by Joshua failed to create an inference of intentional racial discrimination under Castaneda. More importantly, the District implemented policies \"designed\" to address this potential barrier. Dr. Lesley testified that the District suggested principals involve more teachers in teaching Pre-AP and AP classes, rather than having one teacher teach all of the Pre-AP and AP sections. This would allow greater opportunity for African-American teachers to teach Pre-AP and AP courses. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 695 . Jim Mosby, Principal of Southwest Middle School, did as the District suggested and had all of his core subject teachers teach at least one Pre-AP course. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 571. The District also participated in the College Board's \"Teachers of Color\" program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 671. These efforts demonstrate the District's recognition of this potential barrier and implementation of procedures and programs designed to address it. This was all the Revised Plan required. III. Substantial Compliance. 9 The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD \"substantially complied\" with its Revised Plan obligations. See Revised Plan 11. No evidence was presented as to what the parties meant by \"substantial compliance.\" However, the phrase \"substantial compliance\" has a recognized meaning in the context of termination of a consent decree and should be interpreted consistent with that meaning. See AMI Civil 4th 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with a particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). The LRSD cited Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8 th Cir. 1998) only for the purpose of establishing the recognized meaning of the phrase \"substantial compliance\" in this context. Cody actually addresses the generally applicable standard for termination of a consent decree. That standard does not apply in the present case because the Revised Plan included a standard for termination. See Revised Plan 11. If the Court decides not to rely on Cody to define substantial compliance, then Cody is irrelevant. Moreover, Joshua misinterprets Cody in arguing that it establishes a three-step inquiry. The court in Cody stated: [T]he district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see Dowell, 498 U.S. at 24 7, 111 S.Ct. at 636-37. Id. at 1199-1200. The most logical reading of this paragraph is that violations of a consent decree \"constitute substantial noncompliance\" only when they \"cast doubt on the defendants' future compliance with the Constitution.\" Under Joshua's interpretation, a district court would be required to continue supervision of a school district based on substantial noncompliance, even though the district court had no concerns about the school district's future compliance with the Constitution. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the district court's \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities\" at the earliest practicable date. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992). N. The Agreement. The LRSD agrees that the issue before this Court is whether the LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan, and at this time at least, the LRSD does not seek to be declared unitary based on anything other than its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. The LRSD cited the Court to other unitary status cases to provide context for assessing the LRSD's compliance and the evidence presented by Joshua. As the discussion in Section IT, supra, illustrates, Joshua is trying to rewrite the parties' agreement and impose additional obligations on theLRSD. Revised Plan 2 required implementation of policies \"designed to ensure\" specific goals. Joshua 's arguments suggest that the LRSD guaranteed achievement of the goals. To avoid these goals being construed as obligations, the LRSD insisted that the following language be added to - the Revised Plan: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. As stated, the Revised Plan only required the LRSD to develop appropriate programs, policies and procedures. The LRSD worked hard to achieve its goals (e.g. Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 725-26; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 188-89, 428), but it made no guarantees. This Court should reject Joshua's attempts to read such guarantees into the parties' agreement. V. Joshua's Failure to Challenge the LRSD's Compliance. Joshua is correct that Revised Plan 11 does not expressly require an issue to be raised pursuant to Revised Plan 8 before it may be the basis for denying the District unitary status. However, an implied term of the LRSD's agreement to pay Joshua in advance for monitoring 11 was that Joshua would bring compliance issues to the Board's attention in a timely manner.7 Current Board President Baker Kurrus testified that the Board agreed to pay Joshua in advance to facilitate \"a process whereby you on behalf of your clients were going to step forward and tell us what we were doing wrong.\" Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 763. Kurrus testified that the Board relied on Joshua to bring compliance issues to the Board's attention so they could be addressed and would not prevent the District from being declared unitary. Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 763. The Board's reliance was reasonable, and thus, principles of estoppel should bar Joshua from complaining about policies of which it was aware but never challenged during the term of the Revised Plan. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (61 h Cir. I 997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a party's obligations and duties under a consent decree). Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues is also relevant in interpreting the Revised Plan. Under traditional contract law principles, a party with knowledge that the other party's - performance violates the parties' agreement must put the breaching party on notice or the nonbreaching party will be held to have waived the breach. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581 , 585 (l 999)(\"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 v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275,278,647 S.W.2d 492,493 (1983)(\"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.\"). For example, Joshua complains that the LRSD violated Revised Plan 2.7.1 by not preparing a formal program evaluation each year of every program designed to improve AfricanAmerican achievement. However, Joshua knew no later than August 11 , 1999, when ODM 7Counsel for Joshua bad no conflict of interest in making such an agreement. It would have been in the best interest of the class to have violations of the Revised Plan remedied as soon as possible. 12 issued its report on LRSD's implementation plans, that the LRSD did not intend to do so. Joshua's failure to put the LRSD on notice that it considered this a violation constitutes a waiver of this alleged violation. Also under traditional contract principles, Joshua's failure to assert many of the interpretations of the Revised Plan they now advance militates against the Court adopting Joshua's interpretation. The Court should give weight to the parties ' interpretation of the Revised Plan as evidence by their conduct during performance. See AMI Civil 4th 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). Using the same example as above, Joshua's failure to object to the LRSD's interpretation of Revised Plan 2.7.1 during the plan 's term weighs in favor of the Court adopting the LRSD's interpretation as set forth in ODM's August 11 , 1999 report and the Interim Report. VI. Dr. Terrence Roberts Joshua contends that LRSD's discussion of Dr. Terrence Roberts' testimony ignored his \"ultimate views.\" Joshua 's Comments, p. 9. Joshua points to Dr. Roberts ' testimony wherein he seems to draw a distinction between the LRSD seeking unitary status and compliance with the Revised Plan: The concern was to be released from court supervision. And it seemed to be a matter of whatever it took to achieve that goal, and it didn't really have anything to do with the students or the Plan. Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 629. In fact, the only thing LRSD could do in order to be released from court supervision was to comply with the Revised Plan. Revised Plan, 11 . It would have been impossible for LRSD to pursue unitary status in a way that \"didn't really have anything to do with the students or the Plan.\" Joshua also reminds the Court of Dr. Roberts' testimony that the true beneficiaries of the LRSD's advanced placement curriculum are white students. Joshua 's Comments, p. 10; Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 630. This testimony does not advance Joshua 's case. Although there are presently F\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-unitary-response-Joshua-coJ1YllC\"llts.wpd 13 more white students than black students enrolled in advanced placement courses, LRSD has removed barriers to enrollment in those courses, significantly increased the enrollment of African-American students in advanced placement courses, and put in place a system of Pre-AP courses and other supports designed to insure continued increases in the enrollment of AfricanAmerican students in advanced placement courses. Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 86; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 374-75; Tr. July 24, 2002, pp. 668-95 . Joshua misconstrues the LRSD's request for an orderly transition (Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 63) as signaling that the LRSD \"plans changes in student assignment policies which would promote segregation of pupils.\" Joshua's Comments, p. 10. According to Joshua, \"this aspect of the LRSD submission clashes with repeated LRSD assertions that the District is committed to a future without legal violations .\" In fact, the LRSD's request for a transition period is designed to allow the LRSD to maintain its current policies while the District considers the legality of continuing those policies after it is declared unitary: Compare Gretter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) with Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). If the LRSD were planning to change its student assignment policies, it would not seek court approval of a transition period. VII. Section 2.7-Achievement Although the issue before the court is whether the LRSD implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" Joshua argues that conditions which existed before implementation of the Revised Plan and which were drastically changed by the implementation of the Revised Plan 2.7 can somehow be considered as evidence that the LRSD failed to implement the Revised Plan. Joshua's Comments, pp. 14-15. Joshua contends that the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and white children exists partly because \"the LRSD admittedly taught its AfricanAmerican students, including in the massive Title I Program, in a manner causing harm to their achievement levels.\" Joshua's Comments, p. 14. Dr. Lesley flatly denied this accusation: F\\HOJ\\ff\\FENDLEY\\l.RSD 200 1\\des-unitary-response-Joshua-conmcnts.wpd 14 Q. [By Bob Pressman] Do you wish to deny that any part of the difference in the success rates on the two Benchmark Exams was due to black students having been less exposed in the Little Rock Schools to the content of the Benchmark Exams than white students? A. Yes, I will deny that. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't happen that we differentiate. Tr. August 1, 2001 , p. 697. Dr. Lesley testified that \"[t]he instruction for white children and black children is the same in the Little Rock School District, but school is not the only place where children learn.\" Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 696. The evidence clearly does not show that the academic achievement disparity which existed in LRSD before the implementation of the Revised Plan was the result ofLRSD failing to properly teach African-American students. Tr. August 1, 2001 , pp. 696-97. But the issue before the Court remains whether LRSD substantially complied with the requirements of Revised Plan 2.7. Dr. Lesley testified about the many things the LRSD did during the term of the Revised Plan which v.:ere \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , pp. 194-214; Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 713-26. Regarding the low Benchmark Exam scores for white children and African-American children in the LRSD, Dr. Lesley testified that \"those scores are why we changed the curriculum.\" Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 697. Joshua's argument that the LRSD somehow failed to teach its African-American students is further undercut by the fact that African-American students in the LRSD generally perform better on the Benchmark Exams than African-American students throughout the State and that poverty, rather than race, accounts for the low scores. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 420-22; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 415-17, 441; CX 731. The evidence in this case also shows that the programs, policies and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students are working. CX 594; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 405-10; Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 724-25. Regarding the tests LRSD uses to assess early literacy, Dr. Lesley testified: F'.\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\des-unitary-respomc::-Joshua-corrmcnts wpd 15 On every one of those measures, there are eight tests, on every one of those measures there was a considerable narrowing of the achievement gap between African-American and other students, and the gap was completely closed on two of them and almost on two others, by the end of grade two. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , pp. 409-410. The LRSD believes that it will continue to improve the achievement levels of its African-American students. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , p. 422 (\"[W]e have in place now almost everything we need to do to keep improving.\"); Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , p. 428 (\"[T]here is a great deal going on that we think will keep the District moving forward and keep improving.\") Joshua has provided the Court no reason to believe otherwise. F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\des-uni1ary-rcsponsc-Joshua-corrmen1s wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY~- 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on September 5, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME.\\FENDLEY\\l.R.SD 200 1\\dc.s-uni1ary-response-Joshua-comments.wpd 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 2002 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year and proposed budget for - the 2002-2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31, 2002, attached to my August 19, 2002 Order (docket no. 3661). Without objection, I hereby approve both budgets as submitted. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2002. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl--q-i ~Ulf; 58 AND/OR~ ON 5\"L 9/1 .11-- sy_\"7'\" ~--_.._--'---- U.f !fm~cRRT EASUAN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 1 2 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER ~~M~;.,. ' DEP. CL'. AK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 30, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike, asking this Court to strike from the record any evidence presented by Joshua concerning events which occurred after March 15, 2001 . On August 9, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Designation of Testimony to be Stricken. The Joshua Intervenors filed a Response to Plaintiffs Designation of Testimony to be Stricken on August 14, 2002. There are portions of the testimony that Joshua does not object to striking. Thus, the following testimony is excluded by agreement of the parties: PAGE LINES 45 5-25 46 1-12 60 24-25 61 1 63 16-25 64 1-21 71 20-25 6 7 4 72 1-18 91 15-25 110 14-25 197 12-25 394 24-25 395 1-10 425 3-24 453 20-25 454 1-25 455 1-25 456 1-25 457 1-25 460 6-25 461 1-11 461 18-25 462 1-25 498 1-3 501 19-24 527 4-11 The disputed portions of the testimony will be dealt with in categories according to similar subject matter. The following portions of testimony will remain because the specific time period referred to either cannot be ascertained from the testimony or is clearly prior to March 15, 2001: (1) page 45, lines 1-4; (2) page 53, lines 6-25; page 54, lines 1-25; page 55, lines 1-25; page 56, lines 1- 21 ; (3) page 56, lines 22-25; page 57, lines 1-25; page 58, lines 1-6; (4) page 58, lines 7-25; page -2- 59, lines 1-25 ; (5) page 60, lines 1-23; page 61, lines 2-20; (6) page 62, lines 1-25; page 63, lines 1-15; (7) page 65, lines 11-25; page 66, lines 1-25; (8) page 70, lines 17-25; page 71 , lines 1-14; (9) page 92, lines 1-14; (10) page 93, lines 1-23; (11) page 105, lines 10-11 ; (12) page 122, lines 13-16; (13) page 196, lines 12-25; page 197, lines 1-11 ; page 198, lines 8-25; page 199, lines 1- 16; (14) page 329, lines 20-25; page 330, lines 1-24; (15) page 338, lines 21-25; (16) page 348, lines 18-25; (17) page 350, lines 11-25; page 351 , lines 1-21 ; (18) page 381 , line 25; page 382, lines 1-23; (19) page 400, lines 15-25; page 401 , lines 1-25; page 402, lines 1-25; page.403, lines 1-25; page 404, lines 1-25; page 405, lines 1-25; page 406, lines 1-25; page 407, lines 1-25; page 408, lines 1-10; (20) page 408, lines 11-25; page 409, lines 1-25; page 410, lines 1-25; page 411 , lines 1-25; page 412, lines 1-25; page 413 , lines 1-25; page 414, lines 1-5; (21) page 414, lines 6- 25; page 415, lines 1-25; page 416, lines 10-13; (22) page 418, lines 15-25; page 419, lines 1-25; page 420, lines 1-25; page 421 , lines 1-25; page 422, lines 1-25; page 423 , lines 1-25; page 424, lines 1-25; page 425, lines 1-2, line 25; page 428, lines 12-25; page 429, lines 1-17; (23) page 434, lines 9-25; page 435, lines 1-9; (24) page 436, lines 10-25; page 437, lines 1-2; (25) page 439, lines 1-5; (26) page 458, lines 1-25; page 459, lines 1-25; page 460, lines 1-5; and (27) page 497, lines 21-25; page 499, lines 1-16. The following testimony is excluded from the record, and the reasoning for its exclusion is set forth following the description of the specific testimony: (1) The testimony at page 71 , lines 15-19, is stricken. That testimony refers to an evaluation conducted at the end of the 2000-2001 school year, which is necessarily after March 15, 2001. ,., -.)- (2) The testimony at page 122, lines 11-12 and lines 17-19, is stricken. The questions and answer found there concern the year 2002. (3) The testimony at page 198, lines 1-7, is stricken. It is a continuation of the testimony at page 197, lines 12-25, which the parties agreed should be excluded because it refers to the 2001-2002 school year. (4) The following testimony is excluded: page 340, lines 18-25; page 341 , lines 1-25; page 342, lines 1-25; page 343, lines 1-25; page 344, lines 1-25; page 345, lines 1-25; page 346, lines 1-25; page 347, lines 1-25; page 348, lines 1-17; page 349, lines 1-25; and page 350, lines 1-10. As set forth at page 329, lines 14-16, Justin Mercer graduated in 2002, making 2001-02 his senior year. English IV AP, the class Mr. Mercer took from Mrs. Brooks, is a senior class. Because Mr. Mercer's experiences in that class occurred during the 2001-02 school year, they were subsequent to March 15, 2001, and are stricken. (5) The testimony at page 379, lines 10-25; page 380, lines 1-25; page 381 , lines 1-24; page 382, lines 24-25; and page 383, lines 1-5, is cross-examination regarding Mr. Mercer's experience with Mrs. Brooks during the 2001-02 school year. See paragraph 4 above. It is stricken. (6) The testimony at page 395, lines 11-25, and page 396, lines 1-9, is redirect examination regarding the experiences of Mr. Mercer with Mrs. Brooks. See paragraphs 4 and 5 above. The testimony refers to evidence generated after March 15, 2001 , and is stricken. (7) The testimony at page 398, lines 8-25, and page 399, lines 1-9, involves Mr. Mercer's experiences with Mrs. Brooks during his senior year. See paragraphs 4-6 above. That testimony is stricken. -4- IT IS SO ORDERED this I :Z,~ay of September, 2002. -5- Wmwt!JJl:a UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ':'.~J!T?t2~~~~~ _P..!:.CEIVED SEP 2 7 2002 ' A OFFICEOF ~ ESEGREGATIOH MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURI EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ., 1 . - - , . :3, .a-: . . ,-. - - ,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ;DISTRICT NO.1, ET AL 1v1R.S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR IN THE ALTERNATNE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court pursuant to Rule 59( e) to alter or amend the judgment entered herein on September 13, 2002 or in the alternative to provide relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the Judgment or Order herein. Robert Pressman, ass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Jqhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 J9HN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I hereby certi~ that a copy of the foregoi~g t~,~n sent lfif~d U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the followmg counsel of record, on this ,;\u0026lt;_J oay of ~ , 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~- ,, V Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1--'Ir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 8 8 John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 September 23, 2002 C : .S-le:,ll!, FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES W. McCOR/vi,\\Ci( Cl.ERK By: ________ Ol!P\u0026lt;roll!NBEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. LR-C- 82-866 Dear Judge Wilson: SEP 2 4 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORIMG Today we filed a motion for reconsideration. We found several errors in it and wish to correct them. We are hand delivering a substituted Motion for Reconsideration to the Court. The substitute motion does not alter or modify the substance of the motion filed today. It has been hand delivered to Judge Ray, the Little Rock School District counsel, the ODM and other counsel. JWW:js Enclosure- Motion for Reconsideration cc: United States District Court Clerk All Counsel of Record ( ,ere~; / ~~t \\/John W. Walker RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2002 - OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION JAMES W. McCOR'\" ACK By: ''\"''\"' , CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw which it has reached. In making this request, Joshua has been time limited because of the exceeding length of the Court's Opinion and the fact that the Court has sought to address issues that were not the subject of the evidentiary presentation for which the Joshua Intervenors had the burden of proof Joshua notes that the subject of the hearings, as determined by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then presiding Judge of this case, was for Joshua to present the areas ofits greatest strength from among the various objections which Joshua had made to the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. The Court did not indicate that she would allow Joshua to present evidence on matters other than those which were the subject of the hearing before the Court. We make this notation because the successor Court Judge, the Honorable William R. Wilson, has faulted Joshua for not presenting evidence beyond the issues -on which evidence was taken. Joshua also notes that there was no issue that Joshua assumed the 1 burden of proof upon with respect to Joshua's obligations and undertaking with respect to compliance. Joshua had no power to impose any particular compliance upon the school district. Furthermore, Judge Wright made it clear that the agreement between the State of Arkansas with respect to the loan forgiveness of the $20 million dollars which was loaned by the Arkansas Department of Education to the Little Rock School District was not to be the subject of these hearings. Her reasoning was that the matter was premature because all the parties to that agreement were not before the Court, Joshua had not signed off upon it and that it had nothing to do with whether or not Little Rock had substantially complied with meeting the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which the parties agreed upon in January of 1998. The Court has also addressed the issue of the involvement of the ODM with respect to the issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson. The competence of the ODM, quality of the ODM reports, the budget of the ODM and the relationship between ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Those matters had nothing to do with Joshua's burden of proof in demonstrating that the LRSD had not substantially complied with the obligation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Nor was the issue of overall counsel fees with respect to the duration of the litigation and the payments to lawyers, and the public perception of those fees a matter of evidence to be: . considered when Judge Wright formulated the issues. The issue of attorney's fees has no relevance to the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations. The Court, Judge Wilson, has recited histo,y regarding his perception of the fee event and made assumptions regarding those matters. In due respect to the Court, the assumptions are not valid and represent a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the 2 role of lawyers in this long standing case. The Joshua Intervenors were not informed at the time that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable William R. Wilson of the Court's negative attitude toward lawyers who were involved with and associated with this case. While Judge Wright may have had such attitudes, they were not expressed and do not form the basis for any judicial ruling. The attitude of the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods was well known. He disapproved of certain payments to certain counsel, i.e., counsel for Joshua and the legion of , I predecessor and associate counsel who were involved in this case when it was first filed as Aaron v. Cooper in 1956. The parties are entitled, we submit, to have facts found upon the record which means a record which is developed in open Court. The fee issue is particularly sensitive because the Court has proceeded to make assumptions regarding fees and costs. In doing so, the principal erroneous finding is that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Joshua requests that the Court either delete its references to payments to counsel or afford the issue to be revisited in a manner which establishes the fact .and does not further cloud public perception, a point to which the Court appears most sensitive. The Court also seems to disregard the role of Joshua because the Court makes no reference.to how Joshua became involved in this case in the first place and why it was necessary for the school district to seek an interdistrict remedy in the first place. Those matters were not before the Court and we submit should be excised from the Court's Opinion. It is important to note that the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods refused to allow the Joshua Intervenors to intervene in the first place. It was His ruling that the Black plaintiffs did not need their own advocate or representative because the Court would protect the interests of the Black children. That position was overturned by the Court of Appeals and from that point on, Joshua has been the real plaintiff seeking to validate and protect the Constitutional rights of African American children which the LRSD set out to accomplish through counsel who have since been discharged.1 With those points in the foreground and in context, Joshua respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its lengthy Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002 with respect to issues which were not before the Court or for which the Court may have made mistakes. 1. On page 2, the Court indicates that the Settlement Agreements of 1989 were to be implemented \"under the supervision of ... the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" We believe the terminology to be inappropriate because Judge Wright never entered an Order determining the ODM to be the supervisor of any district. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ODM ever - performed in that role. 2. As stated preliminarily, Judge Wright required Joshua to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their strongest grounds for challenging the school district's request for release from Court supervision . The Cou1i did not afford LRSD the opportunity to establish its case because the burden of proof rested with the Joshua Intervenors. Accordingly, Joshua requests that any facts that were found beyond the submitted grounds identified as subject areas for evidentiary hearings should be excised. In this respect, there was no burden imposed upon Joshua to demonstrate its own actions or conduct and no party requested that Joshua make such a demonstration. Moreover, the Agreement did not call for such a demonstration. 1The record will reflect that the District hired Philip Kaplan, P.A. Hollingsworth, Janet Pulliam and their associates to pursue the interdistrict litigation which resulted in the 1989 Settlement Agreement but which Settlement Agreement was reached without those counsel. 4 3. The Court notes on page 7 the role of Judge Wright with respect to Her supervision of this overall case. The Court omits, however, reference to the fact that the LRSD filed a motion seeking to have Judge Wright recused from the case. Although she refused to recuse, her withdrawal made the recusal issues moot for purposes of appeal. The Court appears to have adopted LRSD's reasoning set fo11h in its motion for recusal when it addresses the role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe that is inappropriate, with all deference to the Court, and we believe that it tends to denigrate the significance of Judge Wright's work in seeking to implement through use of the ODM the dictates of the 811 ' Circuit. 4. When the ground rules were set by Judge Wright, she indicated that the Joshua Intervenors should present \"noncumulative\" evidence regarding the areas which Joshua most strongly regarded from the among the many areas to which it objected. Page 7, footnote 12. By ruling that cumulative evidence would be disallowed, the Court narrowed the hearing time and the presentation of evidence. The focus of the Court was upon brevity and substance. The successor Court agreed to follow the procedure set forth by Judge Wright. 5. In footnote 15, page 9, the Court notes that this action was filed on November 30, 1982, but it later gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since that time. Joshua r,equests that the Court, if it must address the history at all again, acknowledge that Joshua did not participate before the Honorable Henry Woods in the liability phase of the case as it is now styled and it only intervened at the remedy stage in 1987. Although this matter is not the subject of the evidentiary hearings, the Court may make this correction by reference to the docket entries and by reference to the Court of Appeal's Decision which allowed Joshua to intervene for purposes of remedy. Joshua fw1her notes that the 1989 Settlement Agreement 5 effectively merged the captioned case with, inter ctlia, Clark v. The Board o(Education of the Little Rock School District. Clark was the continuation of Aaron v. Cooper. Accordingly, this is a 46 year old case rather than a 20 year old case because the liability rulings of Clark remained and because, despite the beliefs of the late Judge Bill Ove1ton, there was never a determination that the LRSD had achieved unitary status. 6. In footnote 30, page 16, the Comi indicates that the claims for relief and remedies differed from those being sought in Clark. Joshua requests that the Court clarify those differences for as Joshua reads Judge Woods' later Opinion, Judge Woods, himself, found the school districts to be faulted for both interdistrict and intradistrict violations of the rights of African American children and he determined that consolidation with a resulting desegregation plan for the consolidated district would be necessary. Judge Woods' appointment of Special Master Aubrey - McCutcheon is not mentioned. Mr. IVlcCutcheon made findings during the remedial process that the districts were continuing to implement their policies by engaging in practices which tended to discriminate against African American school children. We believe that if history is to be written it cannot be fair unless the myriad hearings and other developments before Mr. McCutcheon are placed into perspective. Mr. McCutcheon is a necessary connection to legacy of Judge Henry Woods who the C0urt acknowledges to be the Court's mentor. 7. In footnote 47, pages 26 and 27, the Court makes reference to the evolution of the ODM and its budget. That matter was not before the Court. While Judge Wright's approval of the ODM budget is a matter of public record, we believe the Court may wish to excise these figures because they are inaccurate. Joshua is aware that the ODM budget was never fully spent. Joshua submits that the Court may wish to readdress this issue also because Judge Wright 6 approved the budgets and the manner in which Your Honor treats the budget seems to be at least an implicit criticism of Judge Wright's actions and of the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place. We submit that the ODM and its budget are not fair issues for the instant proceedings and that the Court's attitude regarding the merits of plaintiff's objections may be clouded by the belief expressed that too much money has been spent on the \"professional group.\" In making the request for the reconsideration on this point, we note that all . ' ' of the governmental parties have resisted in one form or another the ODM activities. We also note that the Court may be signaling that it wants to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the 81 h Circuit There is no evidentiary basis for doing that or for allowing that inference to publicly flow On many occasions, Judge Wright commended the ODM work as being useful, helpful and even impo1iant in helping the districts achieve desegregation - goals. 8. On page 38, the Court notes that on December 27, 1996, Judge Wright held that LRSD would benefit from a \"temporary hiatus\" from monitoring. We have searched the record and do not find that she ever lifted that Order. Accordingly, LRSD has not been monitored as contemplated since 1997. Instead, it has been in advisory position to the LRSD. The Court has to also note with reference to the budget of ODM which it set forth on page 27 that monitoring for LRSD when done by the ODM, a 35% cost for LRSD, would have been approximately $250,000 per year. There surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was to take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year, a point the Court refers to at least five times. (Pages 39, 42, 43, 88 and 90). 9. On page 3 8, the Court heads a discussion \"the perplexing final resolution of Joshua's 7 request for still more attorney's fees from LRSD.\" Joshua requests the Court excise this section for several reasons. First, it indicates a bias or hostility toward Joshua counsel. Second, it implies collusion between the lawyers. Third, it suggests that the terms of the Settlement were not made known to Judge Wright, a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Fourth, it complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties. The Court criticizes an Agreement without evidence about, or without inquiring into, it. The implication that LRSD and Joshua entered into an attorney client relationship suggests professional misconduct on the part of the attorneys. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that for the monthly amount of $4,000+ Joshua's counsel agreed to undertake all the monitoring aspects, including the ODM's role, of LRSD's implementation of the plan. The Court takes issue with Joshua counsel's approved 1997 hourly rate of $250. Nonetheless, counsel has been awarded even greater fees than that as was - His Honor awarded greater fees while in private practice. Surely, the Court understood that Joshua did more than 16 hours per month in monitoring this case. There is no record to establish this fact, however, and if it is important for public perception or otherwise, Joshua is prepared to demonstrate the hundreds of meetings held with school district officials during the three year period; numerous meetings with the ODM; public confrontations during monitoring occasions where Joshua counsel were threatened with arrest and where because of the persistence and vigor ofJoshua' s monitoring, the district revised its policies. We, therefore, believe that it is important for the Court to address the issue by hearing, affording appropriate and reasonable time for developing the issues, or, that the matter be removed from the Court's Opinion because it is based only upon speculation and conjecture. Joshua notes here that the process requires lawyers. For instance, Steve Jones, representing the NLRSD and Sam Jones representing the PCSSD basically 8 sat in Court throughout these proceedings and were paid fees and costs while Joshua counsel have not been paid a dime. But the process affords the districts the right of counsel and the districts have had no reluctance in paying their counsel on a contemporaneous basis and they are not held to public or Court contempt for being paid. In page footnote 58, the Court \"guesses\" that all attorneys have been paid at least $8 _million dollars. A \"guess\" is inappropriate for a Court, we submit, when the facts are more easily I ascertainable and the facts establish that the payment for Joshua in 1990 represented payments for 34 years of work and costs during that time. There is no estimate for the amounts which the districts paid their counsel to forestall desegregation before 1990. On the other hand, this issue has already been addressed and we submit has no place in this Opinion because it does not contribute to the issues which the Court heard. Undersigned counsel Walker does not accept the - Court's conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. On the other hand, the three districts have received almost one billion dollars from the State of Arkansas since 1990 because of the various actions undertaken by counsel. Careful inquiry by the Court would disclose that the annual desegregation amounts from the State to the three school districts is in the range of $50 million or more per year. Were this a contingent fee case, plaintiffs' counsel would have indeed benefitted. l 0. The Court makes reference on page 46 to the achievement disparity goals approved by the Court of Appeals as being unreachable citing the testimony ofDrs. Walburg and Armor which was given in 1996. That testimony came after the original Settlement Agreement in 1989 and then preceded the 1998 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, whatever views Walburg, Armor and even Judge Wright had about the elimination of the achievement gap, the parties 9 agreed to address it in the manner set forth in the Plan. The Court's comments regarding _ Walburg and Armor are inapposite to the hearing which the Court held and should play no part in the Court's ruling. 11. On pages 4 7 and 48, the Court refers to the failure of objection by the ODM and Joshua to the Interim Compliance Report. There is no record basis for this, i.e. , no witness Jestified to this effect and there is no evidence that Joshua was silent at any time. The only evidence is that Joshua was continually involved and seeking to be involved in the devisation of policies and procedures and was continually meeting with district officials regarding compliance issues. See Court Exhibits 553 through 569. 12. On page 48, the Court chastises ODM for its report of disciplinary sanctions which was filed on June 14, 2000. The repo11 was made to Judge Wright before she relinquished her jurisdiction and before the March 15 report seeking release from Court supervision was filed by LRSD. She was aware and there are many cites in the record to reflect that ODM presented its report in such a way as to inform the district of the facts it found and to make recommendations regarding those facts within the context of discussions which followed subsequent to the submissions of the reports. Had Judge Wright found criticism with the ODM reports, we believe the Court was obliged to share those criticisms with the parties prior to LRSD having fil~d its report seeking relief from Court supervision. See pages 48 through 50. On page 49, the Court acknowledges that the March 15 report of the school district failed to adequately address the disproportionality of African American student discipline. The report is not evidence, as Mr: Chris Heller acknowledged. This failure by itself demonstrates that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection or release at the time the report was made. If the data were not available and were not presented there would be no basis for an objection from Joshua regarding the matter. ODM should not be faulted, nor should Joshua, for failing to object to data which did not exist at the time. 13. On pages 52 through 54, the Court notes that Joshua did not present evidence or arguments that LRSD \"was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty _and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing.\" The Court had previously instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence. The Court now states that Joshua's failure to present any of that evidence \"requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments.\" Joshua finds it incongruent for them not to be allowed \"to present any evidence on certain matters and upon compliance with a no evidence presentation then receive a finding that they abandoned their position. Surely, the Court will not hold it against Joshua when it did not present evidence that the Court refused to let in in the first place. 14. On page 58, the Court appears to chastise Joshua counsel for never raising a compliance issue under Section 8.2 of the Plan. The Plan did not require Joshua to raise the specific compliance issue in order for them to oppose release from Court supervision. Furthermore, as pointed out above, there was no place in this hearing on the issues as formulated for this issue to be addressed. Furthermore, there is much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. See Court Exhibits 553-569. 15 . The Court interprets footnote 2 of the Revised Plan (Opinion page 60) as \"not\" being the intention of the parties to have the remediation goal fully achieved within three years. 11 Joshua's evidence did not say that it did. For Joshua's evidence was that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing. Surely, the goal of remediation of achievement disparities would be ongoing but elimination of disparities in discipline need not be, for example . . The Court makes an assumption regarding the reason for this footnote. There is no basis for the assumption from the record. 16. In footnote 67, page 60, the Court seems to be uncomfortable with the practical~ty of I the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities. Judge Wright also had some discomfort with that goal as previously noted but the achievement goals were agreed to and, contrary to the opinion of the Court, they must be implemented. The question is not whether they should have been agreed to by the LRSD, for they were, but whether they must deliver on those goals or promises. There is a presumption that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. Twel ve years after the money began to flow and between one half billion and a billion doll ars more spent in this district than which otherwise would have been spent, the achievement disparities remain. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the substantial monies expended were not used for the purpose of remediating achievement disparities between African American and white students. The beneficiaries of the monies have primarily been white students who have seen their achievement rise in ways to cause the gap to remain if not increase between and their still less fortunate brethren. 17. Beginning on_page 63 , the Court makes an analysis regarding the \"Green factors .\" We submit that the Green factors do not apply to this Settlement Agreement and that those factors should be excised. The Court takes the position that LRSD went beyond what it was required to do and \"voluntarily\" assumed desegregation obligations. We submit that these were 12 not voluntarily entered into, they were the result of negotiation brought about by the strength of the Joshua litigation position. They constitute benefits to the class of minority children which were bargained for by their counsel. The district was not doing the children a favor; rather, it was meeting an obligation which has been unaddressed during the 46 years of this litigation. 18. On page 72, the CoUii emphasizes that LRSD has never been adjudicated to be a _\"constitutional violator.\" We ask that the Court reconsider that position if for no other reason than that the settlement did not address fault. The Court discusses Judge Overton's Opinion and makes reference to the appellate's decision affirming Judge Overton at 705 F.2d 265 . The Court of Appeals approved Judge Ovetion 's Decision because the Plan before the Court represented the school board's attempt to temporarily reorganize attendance patterns while the school board pursued longer ranged plans to ensure an integrated school system citing this case. In other words, had this case not been filed , the Court of Appeal's Decision arguably would have been otherwise. On page 74, the Court noted that LRSD operated under the 1990 Settlement Plan for 8 years,\" a long time.\" The Court fails to note that during that \"long time\" Judge Wright found considerable disenchantment with the manner of operation and even required the school board members to come to Court to hear the evidence on many occasions. The Court even found the school district to be in contempt during this time. The Court disregards that history and seeks to demonstrate that LRSD has been a model of compliance during the Judge Wright years. That simply is not the case. This Court recognized as much on pages 30-32 of its own Opinion. The Court is requested to explain on the one hand the findings of Judge Wright and on the other hand its compliments of the district for these 8 years. 19. On pages 77 through 8 5, the Court appears to take issue with the concept that LRSD 13 .e specifically agreed to narrow the achievement gap between African American and other students. This lead the Court to impose an obligation upon Joshua to demonstrate that minority student achievement was a vestige of de jure desegregation. The Court thus imposed a liability concept upon Joshua during the hearing without any notice and without any cause. The Settlement Agreement is a remedy and as such may address issues other than those for which there has been a specific violation. But when the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court it becomes the law of the case and the parties do not have to readdress at each hearing the underlying basis for the remedy being provided. 20. On page 87, the Court makes a finding of fact (No. 3) that Joshua did not pursue the compliance issues by use of the correct procedures before objecting to the report as a whole. As stated before, Joshua was not obliged under the plan to do so. 21. In addressing the fii1dings of fact pages 87 through 160, the Court appears to have adopted the LRSD's proposed findings. While the Court has great discretion, we make the following notations inter alia: a) on page 87, the Court speculates regarding resolution between Joshua and the school districts; b) the Court speculates that Dr. Lacey would take appropriate action if she perceived any race based treatment despite the absence of any record of her past actions on this issue, page 93; c) on page 94, the Cou11 found that since 1989, LRSD had a good record of acting in good faith (see paragraph 18 supra); d) on page 96, the Court accepted the \"belief' by Dr. Linda Watson that both Joshua 14 and ODM were provided with copies of a compliance plan and did not require any evidence; e) on page 96, the Coui1 without any record basis, concluded that Joshua counsel and staff have free access to LRSD's offices and schools and routinely received copies of any requested documents; f) on page 100, the Court excuses the district 's failure in excluding Joshua from planning and other meetings that the district had regarding compliance; g) on pages 103 through I 07, the Court does not address the elimination of disparities as being intended by the Plan; rather, the Court addresses overall reduction in suspensions where the racial disparities remain; h) on page 106, the advisory ODM Report is criticized by His Honor with respect to discipline but Judge Wright did not make the same criticism. Had she done so, a duty to address the issue would have been created; i) on page 109 a \"suspension index\" was created without any explanation (see finding 30), i.e. no witness explained it. The Court accepted the calculation by LRSD that there was no diminishing of disparity in discipline between 1997 and 200.0; j) the Court on page 110 imposed upon Joshua a burden to prove that disproportionality in discipline was a result ofracial discrimination. Joshua submits that that is the wrong legal standard to be applied under the law of this case. The issue is relie( not causation; k) on page 111, the Court disregarded the incidents of discrimination presented in 15 discipline. (See footnote 108) In doing so, the Court disregarded the admonition by Judge Wright not to present cumulative evidence regarding any matter and then held that the presented incidents were too \"isolated\" to allow judgment regarding the entire school system; I) on page 112, the Court may wish to reconsider the word \"probable\" in finding 38 in discussing the testimony of Dr. Watson. A review of her testimony establishes that \"environmental factors may be\" - not \"probably were\" the explanation for racial disproportionality; m) on page 113, the Cowi notes that Dr. Watson indicates that African American teachers suspended African American students more than white teachers. That appears to be a finding of racial treatment by African American teachers toward African American students. This establishes continuation of systematic discrimination toward African American students as well as perpetuation of disparities; n) on page 115, at footnotes l I l-112, the Court seems to condone disparities in sports activities by noting on page 116 that students tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing. That in itself we submit is racial)' .e., . whites-golf, tennis, soccer; blacks - football, basketball and track; o) on pages 116-117, in addressing the testimony of Ray Gillespie, the Court does not address the inferences to be taken when white coaches publicly mistreat Black athletes nor the reasonable perceptions which are influenced by those actions; p) on page 118, the Court in finding 9, accepts a \"means\" test for participation in 16 extra-curricular activities but this flies in face of the reality that most African American children in the .LRSD - in contrast to its white students- cannot meet the \"means\" tests imposed; q) with respect to advanced placement courses, the district has increased the enrollment of white students to a point to where the preexisting disparity has been extended. The programs undertaken by the district which are cited by the Co1;1rt r) ' are minuscule. For example (SMART involved a summer number of 200 pupils and Teachers of Color could only involve six teachers per year in being prepared for AP. This program was sta11ed in January, 2001, less than two months before the R;eport herein); the Court disregarded the testimony of Jason Mercer who presented multiple incidents of unfair treatment at \"famed\" Little Rock Central High Scho?l and the Court entirely disregarded the testimony regarding of parent Romona Horton's travails regarding her precocious children who were also enrolled at Little Rock Central High School; s) the Court accepts a \"means\" test for participation in the University Studies Program despite the obvious conclusion that it will disqualify the great preponderance (90%) of African American students who attend Hall High School. The Court also concluded that in one instance, LRSD solicited a private donation to pay tuition for an African American student to take a course offered under the University Studies Program. The testimony does not identify that the race of that student. The Court is requested to correct this finding; 17 t) with respe.ct to counseling services, finding no. 24, page 133, the Court may wish to revisit this finding because it seems at odds with Ms. Watson's testimony; u) with respect to academic achievement, the Court notes the obligation of the LRSD to be to approve the academic achievement of African American students. The issue is not simply to improve the achievement of African American students, rather, it is to bring their achievement levels to a range within reasonably proximity of the achievement levels of white and other students; v) with respect to page 146, finding no. 16, there is no evidence of what Joshua counsel \"knew.\" Indeed, the 8th Circuit said that the parties should not retreat from the concept of eliminating the achievement gap; and w) on page 114, finding 18, the Court again speculates regarding the loan provision forgiveness by the State of Arkansas toward LRSD. The Court then goes ahead and gives L.RSD two more years in order to comply with the State agreement without there being joinder o( or a hearing upon the issue. The Court faults Joshua for not raising that issue but fails to acknowledge that when it was raised by Joshua, Judge Wright chose not to address it for the reasons set forth on pages 1 and 2, supra. This finding was not made upon any evidence regarding 'the Joshua objections to LRSD's Motion for Release from Court Supervision. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons for the Court to revisit the record in order to determine whether the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are supported by the evidence presented during the hearings before Judge Wright and His 18 Honor. We also note that it is appropriate for the Court to again consider the context of the evidentiary presentations and withdraw its conclusions regarding those areas of compliance that the Court did not allow evidence to be developed regarding. t~ u.,;,~f1 .2-9-\u0026lt;k~,aa ~ ,,., l ; ~11,i/I Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No .. 4(6,5 00 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J~\"'Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 J W. WALKER, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been se~-Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this \"!};z_ day of . , 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Dennis R. Hansen ERIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms: Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; IBNNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 173 88 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF . v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Courts Order of December l 0. 199.3. the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADEs l'rojcct Manugcrncnt Tool for September 2002. Respectfully Submitted. MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. I IANSEN. # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 I (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of' Ed ucation CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCE L Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on September 27. 2002. I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, 1II Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock. AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher 1-leller Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock. AR 72201 -3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jcmc'.) .lack. I ,yon \u0026amp; .Jones 425 W. Cnpilol , Suite 3-t00 Little Rock. /\\ R 7220 I Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol , Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 7220 I Dennis R. Hansen 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_1757","title":"Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Teachers","School administrators","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of 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/1757"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["68 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, motion for additional time to file response; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status regarding the plan sections; District Court, plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER AUG O 2 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11 : 15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors' request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSD's Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties' counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unit! August 9, 2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,~.~vri fUi 58 ANO/O~RCP .. ,,~~ -~ .P..2::::... BY -7-~r---~..c__:=- - UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE 656 RECEIVFD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 1 .') 2002 OFFICE Of DlSEGMGATIOH ii.HuHlfu,.G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 ,,co RECE\\v t ,M) V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSD's Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year. WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). C. Norman 61 1-20 Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 BCC's support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 63 1-25 BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 64 1-21 Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 65 11-25 Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 66 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 71 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 Same as above. C. Norman 91 15-25 Cross concerning Rutherford. 1 C. Norman 92 1-14 Cross concerning BCC.2 C. Norman 92 8-23 Redirect concerning Rutherford. C. Norman 93 1-14 Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 105 10-11 Concerns 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 110 14-25 Concerns 2002-03 school year. P. Watson 122 11-19 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 105) M. Faucette 196 12-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 197, line 13) 1 Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. 2See Footnote 1. 2 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M.Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M.Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks' English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 3 J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. 3See Footnote 1. 3 WITNESS J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer -J. Mercer C.Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne 4See Footnote 1. 5See Footnote 1. PAGE 383 394 395 395 396 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 414 LINES EXPLANATION 1-5 Same as above. 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. 1-9 Same as above. 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.4 1-9 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-5 Same as above. 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 WITNESS C. Payne C. Payne D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames -D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer 6See Footnote 1. 7See Footnote 1. PAGE 415 416 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454 455 456 457 458 LINES EXPLANATION 1-25 Same as above. 10-13 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 12-25 Same as above. 1-17 Same as above. 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society.6 1-9 Same as above. 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 1-2 Same as above. 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 8 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 8See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercer's testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (seep. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts.9 WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. 9See Footnote 1. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~t.:hJ! 2ft John C. Fendley, Jr. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\des-unitary-mot-strike-designations. wpd ~e.;JrJk~ c.Fendley, Jr. ' 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t\"J DISTRICT OF ARK.i-u\"'\\JSAS WESTER.t\"J DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE K.t\"JIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 14 2002 J 8 AMES W. McCORM.A.CK, CLERK y --------:D=E=P-CL-E_R_K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond to the plaintiffs designation of testimony to be - stricken. 45 No objection to lines 5-25 46 No objection to lines 1-12 53-57 Testimony should not be stricken; testimony is within time frame; this is supported by pp. 56-57, 426-27; discussion continues regarding when Norman first came to McClellan in 1999 58-59 No date; testimony should stay in; the LRSD should have addressed any problem in cross-examination 60 60 61 61 No date; testimony should stay in No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to line 1 Lines 2-20; do not strike; student vvitnesses were on team during plan; no date -1- - 62 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 91 92 92 93 105 110 122 196 197 198 No date; refers to testimony of Ms. Thames who discusses Ross during DJ's 10th grade year; do not strike No objections to lines 16-2 5; 1-15 do not strike; no date No objection to lines 1-21 No date; testimony .should stay in; Governor school is necessarily before Sr. year Same as 65; do not strike No date; testimony should remain; inference that she would have staiied before 4th year Refers to 2000-01; no objection to lines 20-25 No objection to lines 1-18 No objection to lines 15-25 Lines 1-14; no date; testimony should stay in; this is cross examination; simply a general description of BCC doesn't relate to fact Lines 8-23; no reference to Rutherford on p. 92; typographical error' No reference to Cluis Payne on this page Testimony within time period No objection to lines 14-25 being disregarded This is cross examination mentioning SCEME not being active this year; this testimony stays because it refers to testimony given earlier Relates to testimony within time period; this took place during 2000-2001 school year; signing up for course to be taken during next year No objection to lines 12-25; other testimony should remain; always refers to Dr. Faucette full time as a teacher at Central Testimony should remain because it refers to last year (during relevant time period); 'Assuming that the Plaintiff was referring to page 93, lines 8-23, no objection -2- - 199 329 330 338 340-350 course was clearly taught during 2000-2001 school year; offerings took place in the Spring prior to March 15, 2001 Same as page 198 No date; testimony should remain Statement of background fact information - this includes Jr. year Background information; establishes she was white AP teacher The LRSD's objection should be rejected; had the district made timely objections as contemplated by the rules, Intervenors would have had the opport1mity to consider offering other evidence 3 5 0, lines 1 1-1 5 351 379-380 381 382-383 394 395 395-99 400 401-408 409 410 411-415 416 No date; testimony should remain Same caveat as 340-350 Inference that students over the years, including during plan years, talked about Ms. Brooks Only information on 2001 test should be stricken No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to lines 1-10 Mixed evidence (includes years during plan); deny objection Background information No date; testimony should remain; identifies pattern with Coach Rutherford (407) No date; remain in No date; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain Background information -, -.)- 418 419 420 421 422 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454-457 458 459 No date; testimony should remain; this deals with cotmseling; plaintiff utilizes presumption that counselors only deal vvith students their Sr. year regarding college Three years necessarily go back to 1999; used during 3 years No date; testimony should remain; (plaintiff argues in effect that Rutherford did this DJ's Sr. year only) Lines 17-18 clearly include the relevant time period; no way to asse11 all evidence omside period; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years (10th \u0026amp; 1 l th grades) Same as 423 Lines 1-2; no date; should remain; line 25 , clearly related to proper period No date; testimony should remain Same as 428; refer pp. to 426-27; counselor told him while in J.O'h grade not to go into Pickering's class; he got out in 11 th grade; this occurred during relevant time period No date; testimony should remain Same as 434 See response top. 429; do not strike Background information; description of counselor No date; testimony should remain No objection to lines 20-25 No objection Testimony within relevant time period Same as 458 -4- - 460 461 Same as above except no objection to lines 6-25 No objection to lines 1-11 461 No objection to lines 18-25 462 No objection 1-25 497 Should remain; audit report confirmed his view 498 No objection to lines 1-3 499 501 Declining enrollment based upon testimony of Carter No objection to lines -19-24 527, lines 4-11 No objection to lines 4-11 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JolmiW. Walker. AR Bar N~. 64046 I/ ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby ce1iify that a copy of the foregoing t1'ts been senroY/ax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ~A,- day of ( ,Ll-{t, , 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Wo1ihen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l - /\\ I ) L/ Mr. Dermis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIFJv1 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Robert Pressman -6- u::.~~ (1- . I,! -~ ll ,,,.,., ti\"\"\u0026gt; Us ~-- -, v1 ~ i::AsTE. . Ol~!Rity~ ,!._C\u0026amp;.~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Rr.,o,.::.TRicr ~#~SAs EASTER.l\"J DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 7 p 2nn-, WESTER.i\"J DIVISION JAMES 1 ~ v J,;L By: IV. ,\\lfcc0Rr~1A'\"'1r ,..,. - \\..o \\, vLc:i~r( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 vVRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTN0.1 , ET Al RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension 1mtil August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and lugument in Opposition to the LRSD's Request for Unitary Stah1s Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24, 2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25, 2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13th day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5 :30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered dming the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and the District's counsel have stated that they do not object to the Coun' s granting the requested extension. \\VHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August '.:6, 2002. Riob~-iPressma'r{,' Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 ~0\"~\\v~ Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 ' / ,1OHNW. WALKER,P.A. -1723 Broadway Little Rocle Arkansas 7'.2206 (501) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~ been sent) ?Y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on th.is / t., day of //t,. i . 2002: , C / \\ Ivfr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . / j Mr. De1m1s R. H.a:risen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Jolu{W. Walker / RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 A OFFICE.OF ~ ESEGREGATIOU,WONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4: 82CV00866-WR W /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER ;~~E AUG 1 9 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua's motion for an extension ohime to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11 :00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5 :00 p.m. on August 19 to 11 :00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this J61h day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V\\/i lf/RU1-ft 58 A~D/OR~. 7FR9CP ON t l1L!? ?-- . bY__7, ,~c......,,..;....,....- ~\u0026lt;L - 660 u.sfo1{Jm~CQRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS AUG r 9 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. I, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERJNE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED AUG 2 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. Also before the Court is the MRC's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' proposed budget for the 2002- 2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2002 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties ten days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MRC' s final budget for 2001-2002. The Court will also allow the parties ten days from entry of this Order to object to the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003. Ifno objections are filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. If there are no objections, the Court will also enter an Order approving the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003 in anticipation that the MRC will file its final (actual) budget for the Court's review at the appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED this J.'i_ day of Augus~~~ - - THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON __j .Y-------~---;----~-- ---7\"\"--'--~- ---===-=-- DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNMED :AJp \"''\" - CT JUDGE W!L~RUyE 58ANO/OR~~ /\" , m~1Lf~,- BY~7,,c.~_.....- , 6 6 1 Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main. Street, Suite 1 01 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 31 , 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: At its July 16, 2002 regular meeting, the Magnet Review Committee listened to a presentation by Little Rock School District and then discussed the interdistrict magnet schools' budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The presentation included the final figures for the 2001-02 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2002-03 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1). No vote was taken at the meeting, and Magnet Review Committee representatives provided the information to their party for vote. A telephone poll was then taken, and the budgets were approved by the Magnet Review Committee by all parties with the exception of the Joshua Intervenors whose representative was hospitalized during budget discussions. FINAL 2001-2002 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,802,473.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $6,473.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,831.65 students. Actual attendance records of 3,809.89 students set the final budget figure at $24,621,107.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure reduced to $6,462.00, or $11.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. This final budget reflects an increase of $612.00 per student over the 2000-2001 actual expenditures, and includes the first year of the two-year improvement plan which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on June 5, 2001. This final 2001-2002 budget also reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2001. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue the Possibilities of ,Uagnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 31 , 2002 PROPOSED 2002-2003 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2002-2003 school year is $25,065,942.00, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $6,579.00 and an increase of $117.00 over the 2001-2002 actual expenditures. The increase in the per pupil expenditure includes the costs for the second year of the two-year improvement plan for the Stipulation magnet schools which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee in their meeting on June 5, 2001. Since Little Rock School District is in their third year of teacher contracts, the salaries, fringe benefits, insurance and other employee variables have already been calculated into this proposed budget. Again. included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2001-2002 :finalized budget in the amount of$24,621,107.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $6,462.00, as well as the proposed 2002-2003 budget, both attached herewith. 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, Ll~LlJ?pldh ~di~ Mitchell,~~ Magnet Review Committee SM'DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2001-2002 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2002-2003 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $466,336 $466 ,336 6.0 $488,260 STAFF 02 Asst.Prin . 10.0 $596,703 $648,136 9.0 $538,289 03 Specialists 40.2 $1 ,792,248 $1,753,532 40.2 $1,745 ,253 04 Counselors 13.4 $596,823 $580,713 13.4 $634,117 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $296,379 $293,841 6.5 $305,577 06 Art-Perf./Prod . 3.0 $106 ,264 $108,116 3.0 $112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $427,544 $432,970 7.6 $392,782 10 Special Education 9.2 $405 ,041 $396,336 9.2 $433 ,925 11 Gifted 5.4 $250,741 $250,731 5.4 $262,294 12 Classroom 191.8 $8,213 ,397 $8,313 ,748 191 .8 $8,639 ,729 13 Substitutes 0.0 $206,000 $238,047 0.0 $230,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $616,631 $657,519 15.0 $658,501 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.1 $13,974,107 $14 ,140,023 307.1 $14.441 ,229 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $603,031 $603,030 20.4 $538,805 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $245,615 $226.301 6.0 $238,020 17 Custodians 30.0 $462,045 $469,891 30.0 $494,072 18 Information Services 1.0 $54,348 $54,766 1.0 $56,503 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $180,971 $180,193 6.0 $184,840 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $414,622 $460,578 22.8 $439,521 21 Frinqe Benefits(20) xxlCi\u0026lt;xx;i\u0026lt;i( $3,964,711 $3,777,239 xxxxxxxk $4,209,662 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 101.4 $5,925,343 $5,771,997 86.1 $6,161,422 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXX:l\u0026lt;ii' $19,899.450 $19 ,912.021 xxxxxxi6( $20,602.651 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xiooixxxii' $533,877 $484.737 xxxxiooo( $409,472 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx' $40,600 $50,141 xxxxxxxi( $39.500 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxixi\u0026lt;xxi $0 $0 xxxi(iooo( $0 25 Other XXXXX~l( $219,556 $211,221 xxxxi6ocx $146,581 TOTAL (30) xxxxxioo( $794,033 $746,099 xXXJiicxxx $595.553 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:\u0026amp;io\u0026amp;ii $2,000 $265 XXXi\u0026lt;i\u0026lt;*.x $1 ,200 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom xxxxio6o( $554,178 $561,699 xxxxx,~k $556.304 (40) 28 Media xxx:xx.i6oi: $44,100 $42,523 xxxxmot $49. 025 29 Other ~ : $240,368 $265,400 ;xx~; $256,463 TOTAL (40) ,- .. :--. -: -.- .-: 'XXJO\u0026lt;X)00t $840,646 $869,887 'xxxioooo( $862,992 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx~xxxk $1,340,925 $1,278.872 i\u0026lt;ioooooix: $1,079,371 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. 'xxx:iooo6( $0 $0 XXJOQ\u0026lt;xxX $0 (50) 32 Other xi\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;xxX $0 $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $1 ,340,925 $1,278,872 xxxiixxxi( $1 ,079,371 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx: $18,400 $7,782 xxxxx\u0026gt;ii:xic $1 o,9oo (60) 34 Other :xxxxxioo{ $0 $0 xxxxxxxi( so TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxi $18 ,400 $7,782 xxxxxxxx $10,900 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxioo( $2,994,004 $2,902,639 xxxxxioot $2,548 .816 TOTAL (10-60) 409.5 $22,893,454 $22,814,660 393.2 $23,151,467 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxi6ot $1 ,909.289 $1,806,447 xxxxxxxX $1,914.474 xxxxxxxx: . . $24,802;743 $24,621,107 xxxxxxxx \u0026lt;\u0026lt; $25,065,942 Magnet8udget0203MAGBKOJ.xls summ~rv/H/UH i// :::::: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $146,503 $62,736 $96,083 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,639 ,927 $1,630,271 $1 ,664,438 Vocational $32,800 $23,494 $32,800 Athletics $51,559 $51,532 $82,653 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $415 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1 ,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $1 ,909,289 $1,806,447 $1,914,474 Per.Pupil'CostT 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,831 .65 3,809.89 3,809.89 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621 ,107 $25,065,942 Fu~ding sv soiirce 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas $12,401 ,371 $12,309,755 $12,532,971 LRSO $7,778,140 $7,722,783 $7,860,679 PCSSD $3,013,533 $2,990,129 $3,045,512 NLRSD $1 ,609,698 $1 ,598 ,440 $1 ,626,780 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621,107 $25,065,942 MagnetBudget0203MAGBK03.xls ~Wi'r~1~~i?t~~m0m~17(PRf'sD),:::: 'i\\0t;:02\u0026lt; :. 01~02::c :: n: :n:01~02 :' 02,03\\ \u0026lt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; 02.:as:::::::::: iET;' H \\Proposed :n :.:::JAdua1 :)ET:E) : { LPf.i:fpose'd \u0026lt; CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 78,368 $ 78,368 1.0 $ 82,856 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 60 ,653 $ 60,653 1.0 $ 62,345 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 325,990 $ 314,857 7.0 $ 326,629 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 90,561 $ 92,869 2.0 $ 98,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 50,698 $ 32,178 1.0 $ 34,151 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 106,264 $ 108.116 3.0 $ 112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $ 104,959 $ 104,959 1.3 $ 107,932 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 47,078 $ 47,078 1.0 $ 48,389 12 Classroom 31 .6 $ 1,310,270 s 1,301,316 31.6 $ 1,449,702 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 21,000 $ 33,493 0.0 $ 35,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 167,761 $ 228,076 5.0 $ 209,935 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 53 .9 $2.363 ,602 $2.401 .963 53 .9 $2,567,501 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 39,512 $ 38,583 2.0 $ 40,328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 40.205 $ 40.205 1.0 $ 41,318 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 65.834 $ 62.444 4.0 $ 67,078 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9.058 $ 9.130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $ 97.920 $ 112,878 6.0 $ 111,922 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXX)()(XJ\u0026lt;X S658.313 s 643 ,030 ~ $ 721 ,388 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.2 $9 10,842 $906.269 13.2 $991,453 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $3 ,274,444 $3,308,232 xx,dcxixxx $3,558,954 URCHASED 22 Utilities xx;iixxxxx: $ 70 ,544 $ 65 ,320 lxxxxx:boC: $ 65,379 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $ 10,000 $ 4,688 x~ $ 10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i\u0026amp;xfubJl $0 $0 ~~ $0 25 !Other .XJ0()()00(X. s 15.275 $ 23 .320 xxxXJ00ix $ 17.012 TOTAL (30) .iooooooo\u0026lt;i S95.819 $93.327 xxxxxxxl( $92.391 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xxxxxxi\u0026lt;.X $0 so X)()O(XXiO( $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom i\u0026lt;)Ci()O(XXX $ 74.740 s 64 .777 xxxxxxxi( $ 77.236 (40) 28 Media io\u0026lt;xxxxi\u0026amp; $ 7.500 $ 6,160 xxxxxxxx $ 8,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx $ 51.113 $ 48 .359 io6ooci:xX $ 23 ,250 TOTAL (40) liooixx:io\u0026amp; $133 .353 $119 ,296 xfuxxi\u0026lt;if $108 ,486 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXX)(){XXX. $ 192.083 $ 189.148 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;it $ 374,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxxxi so so : ~ . $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx $0 so XXXXX)OO(' so TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $192.083 $189 ,148 xxxxx:xxx: $374.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxi\u0026lt;xxxx . $ 2,500 $ 195 XXXXJ00()(' $ 2.500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxxxi so so xxxxxxxx so TOTAL (60) :xxxiooooC:: S2.500 $195 xxxxxx,6( $2.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx $423.755 S401 .966 xxxxioixx $577.377 TOTAL (10-60) 69.1 $3 .698 .199 $3.710 .198 67 .1 $4,136.331 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxx~xx: S272.051 S287,129 XXXJO\u0026lt;XXXi $270,748 .: GRANDTOTAL \u0026gt;\u0026lt; xxxxxxx: !::\\! ) $3 ,970,25-0 ... ; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; S3;997';327 xxxxxxxx , ,: / $4;407;; 07 : Stipends $30,500 $31,625 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $235,932 $249,542 $254,772 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $152 $159 $159 Plant Services $4,604 $4,898 $4,898 Reading $72 $64 $77 Science $0 $0 $0 English $216 $230 $230 Special Education $575 $612 $612 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $272,051 $287,129 $270,748 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 551 .25 583.17 583.17 Total Costs $3,970,250 $3,997,327 $4,407,078 20.02-03:BUOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) , \u0026lt; 01-0-2\\ .- : :: 01~02: . :-:- : -: :/H /i//01~02+\u0026lt;' 02~0.3\\ /?/)12~03, //: c~rii,~ Miit.inet Sctfool ., .. : : ' F,T:E,) . / proposed)) r::\u0026gt;:Actua1,.: :.i:: F,T\\ \u0026lt;P.l'opo~~dH:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 74,672 $ 74,672 1.0 $ 79,028 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,733 $ 55.733 1.0 $ 59,057 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 341 ,075 $ 335,274 8.0 $ 338.469 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 83 .122 $ 81 ,009 2.0 $ 87,538 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $ 51 ,594 $ 68,943 1.5 $ 70,859 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 57,166 $ 63 ,805 1.5 $ 67,474 11 Gifted 1.4 $ 63.368 $ 63,358 1.4 $ 67,099 12 Classroom 21 .3 $ 776.272 $ 771 ,194 21 .3 $ 849,791 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30 .000 $ 30 ,216 0.0 $ 32,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 5.0 $ 213,563 $ 213.563 5.0 $ 224,222 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1 ,746 ,565 $1,757,767 42.7 $1,875 .537 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 64.212 $ 65,786 3.0 $ 76,090 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 38 ,705 $ 30.717 1.0 $ 32.672 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 60 .923 $ 56 .233 4.0 $ 63.439 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $ 127,929 $ 131 ,568 4.4 $ 98,392 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxfu\u0026amp;i $ 531,481 $ 506,792 )C(X)()~)()t $ 568,219 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $832 ,308 $800,225 12.6 $848,231 TOTAL (10-20) xxxi\u0026lt;XX)O(:' SZ.578.873 52,557,992 xxxxioo\u0026lt;. $2,723,768 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJO(X)OO(X , $ 57,257 $ 49.267 -xxxiooooc $ 52,173 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000\u0026lt;XXX $ 12.000 s 9.350 XXXJOO\u0026lt;:i\u0026lt;)( $ 7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxxxxx $0 so -~ $0 25 Other ~ s 10 .803 $ 14,385 l0000(;l(io( $ 13,320 TOTAL (30) xJOixxxxx S80.060 $73,002 xxx\u0026gt;ooixk $ 72.493 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx,oo( $0 $0 xxxxxiexx $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom i\u0026lt;io\u0026amp;xxxx s 74.280 $ 79.393 l\u0026lt;JOO\u0026lt;X:XXX: $ 73 ,941 (40) 28 Media ')()000()()0(' $ 9.000 $ 8,968 ~iot $ 13.100 29 Other )OOQ()(XXX $ 27 ,901 $ 30.062 . .X l0()()00(X. $ 24.033 TOTAL (40) XJOO()()()(X. S 111 ,181 S118.424 xxxxxxxi $ 111 ,074 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx $ 253.800 $ 261 .853 .xiaooo:xx $ 65 .200 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xio:xxxxx i $0 so xxxlOO(xxi $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxi(xx so $0 xxxxxxxii: $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx : S253.800 $261 ,853 XXXX)OO(X;' $ 65 .200 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )OO{)()()(j()( $ 2,000 $ 3,295 xxxroxX: $ 2.000 (60) 34 Other )00()00:;;,o( $0 so xxxJ\u0026lt;XXioi., 50 TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx S2.000 $3 .295 xxxxxxxx $ 2.000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxix,( S457.041 S456.574 XJOO\u0026lt;X:XXi( S250,767 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $3 .035 .914 $3,014 ,566 55.3 $2,974,535 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx S249.080 $233,435 xxxxxx\u0026gt;ixi $236.409 .. '\u0026lt;..GRANDTOTAL . -... :: xxxxxxx ::::: ) S3.284;994 )\\::: ' $3,248;00:1 :xx:xxxxxxi' :::: : ::: $3~210,944 c~rv.~r.H /\\/)? '\\ 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $26.463 $17,107 $15,643 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $217,439 $211 ,279 $215,707 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proorams $140 $135 $135 Plant Services $4,243 $4,147 $4,147 Readino $66 $54 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $199 $194 $194 Special Education $530 $518 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $249,080 $233,435 $236.409 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 508.04 493.75 493.75 Total Costs $3,284,994 $3,248,001 $3,210,944 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 73 ,036 $ 73,036 1.0 $ 77,260 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,601 $ 55.601 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 266.044 $ 251 ,648 6.8 $ 276,900 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 31 ,000 $ 40.343 1.0 $ 42,524 05 Media Soec. 1.0 $ 53 ,116 $ 52 .307 1.0 $ 54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 SO 0.0 so 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 SO SO 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 89 .448 $ 87,264 2.0 $ 90,833 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 40 .616 $ 40 ,616 1.0 $ 42,805 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 70 1.377 $ 709,180 16.5 $ 724,169 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 14,000 $ 11 .094 0.0 $ 15,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 2.0 $ 87.050 $ 86.769 2.0 $ 90,530 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 32.3 $1,411 ,289 $1 ,407,858 31 .3 $1,414,619 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 35,431 $ 28 .978 1.4 $ 32.000 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 37,713 $ 37 .517 1.0 $ 39,818 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 46,484 $ 48 .280 3.0 $ 49 ,324 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.6 $ 58 ,415 $ 53 ,891 3.2 $ 43,022 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxioiJ\u0026amp; $407,532 $ 364 ,638 )00()()00()( $ 411 ,792 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.2 $594,634 $542,434 8.7 $585,374 TOTAL (10-20) XXX)00(XXi $2,005 .922 $1,950 .292 lOOO\u0026lt;x-xxi( $1 ,999.994 PURCHASED 12-2--+U_t_ili_ti_es ________x _ JO_O O \u0026lt;XX _x~_s_ __3 _1.6_3_3-t-$ __2 _4_._16_3--+x-_x.xx_x:xx.x-;~$---2-4~.7-1_5-i SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioixx:' $ 2.000 $ 10.291 XXXXloixi( $ 2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxio.ixi( $0 $0 :xxxio\u0026amp;i\u0026lt;i( $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other xxxxxxi\u0026lt;i( $ 32.568 $ 8.201 xxxiodiio( $ 10,730 TOTAL (30) J0000\u0026lt;Xi\u0026lt;i( $66 .201 $42.655 xx:idoo:xi( $37,445 26 Principal's Office ooxlciiio( $ 1 .500 $0 'XXXXJOOO( S 1,000 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxxixk $ 34 .050 s 51 ,801 xxxxxxio( s 55.284 28 Media XXXJOOO\u0026lt;X;' $ 3,500 s 1. 138 xxxiooi:iod s 3,500 29 Other xxxxxxxx s 75 .1 45 s 79 .004 :~ $ 27.685 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxi: $114. 195 $131 .943 xio(xioooci $ 87.469 30 Equipment XXXlOOOQ( . $ 254 .554 $ 244,662 XXXJOOOOC. $ 150.341 31 Buildino Repair. etc. xxixxxxx so so xxxx.Jooo( $0 32 Other ~xxxxx $0 $0 x xxxi\u0026amp;xx : $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $254,554 $244.662 x xxxiod\u0026lt;x $ 150,341 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx s 3,ooo s 1.284 xxxxiooix s 1,500 34 Other XXlOOO'.xx $ o $ o xxxxxxx,( $ o TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $3 ,000 $1,284 xxxxxxxx $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) XJOO\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;x $437 .950 $420.544 .XXJ\u0026lt;xx:i(~.i( $276.755 TOTAL (10-60) 44.5 $2,443.872 $2,370 .835 40.0 $2 .276.749 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx $198.014 $139.360 XXX)()(Xi\u0026lt;i( $188.118 : \u0026lt; GRANDT OT:AL' ::. xxxlOCXJC / ; $2~641,886i \u0026gt; : S2;510;1.95 . xx.xxxxxx :/(:$2~464;86.Gi Stipends $65,440 $4,451 $50,440 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $129,490 $131,761 $134,522 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $83 $84 $84 Plant Services $2,527 $2,586 $2,586 Rea di no $39 $34 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 English $118 $121 $121 Special Education $316 $323 $323 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $198.014 $139,360 $188,118 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 302.55 307.92 307.92 Total Costs $2.641 ,886 $2,510,195 $2.464.866 2002-:03 BUD\u0026lt;3c~ PROPOSAL(DRAFT:1) -:, ,:: , / :.01;;02/ //i\u0026lt; D1 }2 H /\\i :::::H\"Qt~o2.:::::: :=: 02;;03\\ :.=::: = oi:o3 = :: Wllliams.-/v1agnet School :- . .- \u0026gt; . .-, _-. _. .: ? \u0026lt; ET,E,/ \u0026gt; Priii:idse.d; \\ ::\\\\Acttia:I //. ,;:i:Fff;E/ \u0026gt;::f'r'ooosed:\u0026gt;, CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81,976 $ 81 ,976 1.0 $ 84,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 52.481 $ 52.981 1.0 $ 60,557 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 244,846 $ 244,683 5.0 $ 251,669 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 38,750 $ 34,304 1.4 s 64,565 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 44,260 s 43,702 1.0 $ 46 ,565 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $ 43,157 $ 43.432 1 .1 $ 45,183 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 99,679 s 99,679 2.0 $ 104,001 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 840 ,860 $ 858,576 20 .0 s 859,254 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28 .000 s 25,614 0.0 $ 28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 3.0 $ 148.257 s 129,111 3.0 $ 133,814 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .622 .266 $1 ,614,058 35 .5 S1 .677,863 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 65 .041 $ 63,421 3.0 $ 66,364 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50 .775 s 50,775 1.0 $ 52,192 17 Custodians 3.5 s 49,997 $ 48,074 3.5 $ 53,838 18 Information Services 0.2 s 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $ 47,312 $ 42,424 4.8 $ 59,039 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ioooo\u0026lt;xxx $461 ,695 $ 410,932 xxxiodixx $ 469,708 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $683 ,877 $624,755 12.5 $710,559 TOTAL (10-20) ioooooooc $2.306 .144 S2.238 .814 ioooocxio( $2,388,422 PURCHASED 22 Utilities X)(X)OOO()( $ 49 ,142 s 39,058 xxxxxxxi( $ 45.129 SERVICES 23 Travel X)00()QO(X: $ 3.000 $ 3.902 )00{)()0(){)(. $ 5.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~ $0 $0 XXXXXXXX: $0 25 Other XX:XJOOO\u0026lt;X $ 20 ,780 $ 15.386 -~xi $ 17.849 TOTAL (30) XXXlOOO\u0026lt;Xi'. $72,922 $58.346 :~ $ 67,978 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xlOOO\u0026lt;XXX $0 $0 XXX)OOO(X : $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom XJOOO:xxx $ 77,415 $ 71 ,709 XXlOOOO\u0026lt;X $ 76 .100 (40) 28 Media xxxiixxxx.: $ 4,600 $ 6.824 'XXXJOO\u0026amp;x' $ 4.600 29 Other iioooooooc:: $ 61 ,411 $ 67,015 xxxxx:xxx $ 63.527 TOTAL (40) )()(;X)0000(:. $143,426 $145.548 xxioooixx $ 144,227 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XX:XXlOOO( $ 127.050 s 135,292 xxxio\u0026amp;xx: $ 106.800 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;ioooooix. $0 $0 xxxxxxxx:: $0 (50) 32 Other :xxx)O(;X)O\u0026lt;'. $0 $0 'xxxi66ooc:: $0 TOTAL (50) i\u0026lt;xxxlo:xx:. $127,050 $135,292 i\u0026lt;xxl\u0026lt;XXi\u0026lt;X j $ 106,800 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ioooocxxx $ 1,500 $ 1,093 xxxxxxio( $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxix;,C: $1 .500 $1 ,093 xioooo\u0026lt;xx $ 1.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx $344,898 $340,279 xxxxx:xxx $320,505 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2.651,042 $2.579,093 48.0 $2,708.927 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXX)OO(X:. $210.444 $196.499 xxxxxxxx. $208.875 : \u0026gt;\u0026gt;GRAND TOTAL \u0026gt; xxxxxxx; .-. : ::$2,861-,48'6:' \u0026lt;:;: - $2,775;592 XXXXXXXX : , : --- \u0026lt;: : : $2;9'17;802: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $10,000 $1 ,623 $10,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,782 $190,328 $194,317 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $126 $122 $122 Plant Services $3,820 $3,736 $3,736 Readinq $60 $48 $58 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $179 $175 $175 Special Education $4 78 $467 $467 xxxxxx x.xxxxx Total Line Items $210.444 $196.499 $208,875 Per P.t.iowcostH\u0026lt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 457.44 444.79 444.79 Total Costs $2,861.486 $2,775,592 $2,917,802 Q1sQ2 :;:;:-:: \\ 02:-03/ J\\i:\\02~03\u0026lt;:// ..,=: Adliiit: :: \u0026lt; F;T:E\u0026gt;i H\u0026gt;P.rcip(isid :/: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,676 $72,676 1.0 $76,900 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $176,705 $227,638 3.0 $156,888 03 Soecialists 3.6 $163.370 $164,345 3.6 $134,194 04 Counselors 3.0 $149,517 5145,587 3.0 $156,487 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $53,116 $53 ,116 1.0 $54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $132.513 $133,962 2.6 $138,640 10 Special Education 1.3 $63,233 $65.323 1.3 $69,290 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2.087,522 $2,170,720 49.8 $2,189,224 13 Substitutes 0.0 555,000 $78,616 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,953,651 $3,111,983 65.3 $3,036,222 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $132.784 $128,608 5.0 $126.526 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $41,496 $30,366 1.0 $33,222 17 Custodians 6.0 S79,465 $96 ,858 6.0 $93.824 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,130 0.2 $9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31,361 $32,113 1.0 $33,284 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $32,502 $49,399 2.4 $52,900 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $797,21 3 $837,646 x~ $878,574 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,123,879 $1,184,120 15.6 $1 ,227,749 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxi( $4.077.530 S4,296, 103 -~ . $4,263.970 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .xxxi\u0026lt;xxxi( S150,786 $149.815 xx:xi\u0026lt;icoo::: $48,500 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioooc: ' 53.000 $9.496 x~ S4.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x $0 $0 i\u0026lt;xxxloiio( $0 25 Other xxxxxm S63.345 $73,793 XXJ()(J(XXi( $50,160 TOTAL (30) xxxxx,oo\u0026lt;' S217.131 $233 ,104 .xxxio\u0026amp;xx $102.660 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office l\u0026lt;.XXXXX)(k. $0 $0 XXlOO(;)O(X. $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxx:ioo( S100.988 $107.387 XXXXJ\u0026lt;XXX: $79,505 (40) 28 Media $7,500 $6.399 ~ ' $4,425 29 Other Xl\u0026lt;XXJ000f $16,016 $21.443 joooo\u0026lt;xxx: $108,888 TOTAL (40) $124.504 $135.228 XXlO\u0026lt;XXXx-: $192.818 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x'' S238,607 $209.170 xx.xxxxxx S291.430 OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair. etc. :xxi\u0026lt;xxxxit $0 $0 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x: $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx: $0 so xxxxxxxx : $0 TOTAL (50) ,xxxxxxxxi $238.607 $209,170 -XJ00000()(: 5291,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXXXX': $2.000 $870 .)()()()(XXXX: $1 .000 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx: $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxx,o( S2.000 $870 XXJ\u0026lt;XXJ(io( $1 .000 TOTAL (30-60) XXXJOQOO( S582.242 $578,372 xxxxxxxx. $587.908 TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 $4.659.772 $4.874,475 80.9 $4,851 ,878 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,XXXXX:XXJC $417.384 $399,312 xxxxxxxx $427.346 xxxxxxic \" S5,077; 1.S6': )\u0026gt; SS;273;787 icicxxx:xx !\\:/ i SS,279,225 1 Stipends $8 ,100 $1 ,508 $4,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $365,944 $358,611 $366,127 Vocational $13,936 $9,943 $13,881 . Athletics $20,924 $20,910 $34,980 Gifted Proorams SO $0 $0 Plant Services $7,141 $7,039 $7,039 Reading $112 $91 $110 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $335 $330 $330 Soecial Education $893 $880 $880 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $417,384 $399,312 $427,346 Per Pifoii cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855.02 838.06 838.06 Total Costs $5 ,077.156 $5 .273,787 $5 .279,225 Per Pupil Ci:isti'/ 200203 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) ': : 01~02i ' /(; Ot--02\u0026lt;\\/ ///01~02 / , \\ 02~03,i ,, \\:!02~3: // Pa~kview.-Magnet Sch'ool : :. ., ' -F~T;E/ :}/Pr:oposed / \u0026lt;\u0026gt; Actual \u0026gt; :. F.T;E., //Proposed\\( CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $85,608 $85,608 1.0 $87,960 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $195,530 $195,530 3.0 $199,442 03 Specialists 9.8 $450,923 $442,725 9.8 $417,393 04 Counselors 4.0 $203,873 $186,601 4.0 $184,944 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $43,594 $43 ,594 1.0 $44,804 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $295,031 $299,008 5.0 $254,142 10 Special Education 2.0 $47,078 $31 ,553 2.0 $53,213 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 $2,497,097 $2,502,762 52.6 $2,567,589 13 Substitutes b.O $58,000 $59,013 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 78.4 $3,876,734 $3,846,394 78.4 $3 ,869,487 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $266,050 $277,654 6.0 $197.498 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,721 $36,721 1.0 $38,798 17 Custodians 9.5 $159,341 $158,002 9.5 $166,569 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,119 0.2 $9,408 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $149,610 $148,080 5.0 $151,556 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $50,544 $70,418 2.0 $74,246 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1 ,108,477 $1 ,014,201 ~ $1,159,982 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 $1 ,779,802 $1,714,194 23.7 $1 ,798,057 TOTAL (10-20) x~ $5,656,536 $5,560,589 ~ $5 ,667,544 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ $174,515 $157,114 ~ $173,576 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $10,600 $12,415 ~ $11 ,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~ $76,785 $76,136 ~: $37,510 TOTAL (30) ~ $261 ,900 $245,665 ~ $222,586 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office i6oo\u0026lt;l\u0026amp;x $500 $265 ~ $200 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom ~ : $192,705 $186 ,632 ~ $194,238 (40) 28 Media i\u0026lt;xi\u0026lt;ic\u0026amp;x $12,000 $13,033 xiooooo\u0026lt;X' $15,400 29 Other ~ : $8,782 $19 ,516 ~ . $9,080 TOTAL (40) ~ s213,987 s219,447 xx~ s218,918 CAPITAL 30 Equipment x;ioooooc: $264,831 $238 ,747 ~ $91 ,600 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;XxxxxX: $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other ~ $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) JOCXi\u0026lt;)i;Xif $264,831 $238,747 ~ $91,600 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXJ(X)(X s7,4oo $1 .045 x.xxxxioo\u0026lt; s2.400 (60) 34 Other xxxxioof so so xioo6ooo\u0026lt;, so TOTAL (60) xxxx.xxx $7,400 $1 ,045 XXXJQOO(X $2,400 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $748,118 $704,904 XXX~XXX: $535.504 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $6,404,654 $6,265,493 102.1 $6,203,048 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx S562,317 s5so,712 xxxxxxxx $582,978 ' _._.,_,,,, 'G.RAND TOTAL!''\" : \u0026gt; . 2001-02 2002-03 Stioends $6,000 $6,423 $6,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $495,340 $488,750 $498,993 Vocational $18,864 $13,551 $18,919 Athletics $30,635 $30,621 $47,673 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $9,666 $9,594 $9,594 Readinq $151 $124 $150 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $453 $450 $450 Soecial Education $1 ,208 $1 ,199 $1 ,199 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $562,317 $550,712 $582,978 PerPli:pi!Cost): 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,1 57.35 1,142.19 1,142.19 Total Costs $6 ,966,971 $6,816,205 $6,786,026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EA.STER.\"J\\i DISTRJCT OF ARK.A_N\"SAS '\\VESTEfu\"J DIVISION I,.JTTLE ROCK SCI;IOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l, ET AL :tvffi.S. LORENE JOSHU.~ ET AL KATHERil\\TE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFEND.ANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSD' s motion to be released fi:~m Court supervision and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 198 9 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan was intended to A: 1JOSHUA..OPP -1- implement the original remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revisep Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was amicipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval of the Joshua Imervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein andotherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted of the school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua. Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with - Joshua's. approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report dated March 1:5, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in Juiy, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. l.Jltirnately, these proceedings were scheduled for January, 2002 but they were delayed upon motion ofJoshua. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. A:1JOSHUA.OPP -2- l L !, : .J~t Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July, 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua IC the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to 3ubmit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further ~-t'!--'u --.: of the parties ' respective positions to the Coun by 1100 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr ,nts the Joshua Intervenors' compliance with the Court's directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented byJ oshua through Ms. Ann 11larshall. The ; -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 wl1.ich are now before the ..:.,,:.:: for review and decision are Sections 2.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These sect1 ~dress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified Ai.. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pn i ion of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and \"more equity in academic h _.-.,rs, awards and scholarships.\" The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture ,vhich it portrays regarding the System's good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate . t,-...,,~ve:-- of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plari. We submit that the ultimate object1 ves of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination of the vestiges of rc.cial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures which do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, 2 __ vn in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge vVilson, demonstrated that the District -;.1ot acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A: 1JOSHU4.. OPP January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. I. THE TESTIMO:NY OFODMDIRECTORA1\"i\"NlVLI\\.RSHALLREBU.TS THE LRSD'S POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS Al~ OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :tvis. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as r~presented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation, complained to Ms. Marshall about the LRSD s lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not mal,;:e \"annual evaluations\" of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make \"annual assessments\" of all programs or an annual \"listing of programs\" by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 3 7, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a \"Research Agenda\" which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 3 6] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term \"assessment:' when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:\\JOSII'c.JA OPP -4- to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now. proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence duri_ng the July, 2002 hearings. Joshua now proposed the following facts : A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1 , good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary status being declared; what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools; and awards which the District has received known as the Arkansas Quality Award. It does not in the body of the report address the objective ofremedyingthe effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District did not develop a policy with respect to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses I. The District's March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as \"l. High-level reading comprehension and wTiting skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performa.i.'lce\" and \"4. 'B' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R); [Tr. at 49 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 560 (l Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that ther:eafter there would be, basically, a free choice A: lJQSh.u...4. OPP -5- assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); [Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 2. The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that there would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed \"assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy IKC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and increased the rigor of the curriculum Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging African ivnerican students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter ofidentifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of African A... merican students . 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy IKC does not address the issue ofrace. Policy IKF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language pro gram. 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy IKF \"raised the bar\" even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -6- r :i including at least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. \"Raising the bar\" has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead \"raising the bar\" in the manner the LRSD did became a \"barrier'; itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurement barometers. 6. The 2001 Report content on pp. 3 0-31 does not demonstrate how .A..frican .American students are benefitted by these policies. 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being ,witten to promote the \"percenta2:e\" of African .A.rn.erican students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 2 l and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District v1ill utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African American students in advanced courses in order to make \"data driven\" decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated \"so that progress for each group can be determined.\" The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT The percentage of students taking the .AP makes no reference at all to the race of AP examinees [e.g. 4 3] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score \"19\" on the A: \\JOSJ:FUA. OPP -7- ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The \"average scores\" of racial groups are presented; but the number of A.!,.,. stuqents who score \"19\" or above is not presented. [e.g. 48-49] 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least \"3\" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [ e.g. 44] The data presented included \"percentage\" of students earning a \"C\" or above in AP [ e.g. 44] and Pre-.A.P courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Progra.i:n for one year only. [ e.g. 44-4 7] 10. The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example; reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the \"percentage\" of students who perform at the \"Advanced\" level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math. [p . 237; see also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the \"at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the \"advanced\" level, p. 103 (literacy); p. 131 (math). 11 . The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the e)ctent to which African American males students fare within the District. 12. Vfhen the District did not present data regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malcingjudgments regarding the e)..'ient to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being \"at or above proficient\" does not disclose the relative relationship benveen non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the \"percentage\" of students who performed in the top ouartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics. [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for African A.mericrui students withot use of this \"quality indicator.\" [ e.g. p. 104-105; A:'JOSHUA.OPP -8- t 1...,,, lLli::!.] .J .J ' ' ' 13. Of the. pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle' school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for , each grade level. A ,,. curriculum for middle schools was required because the District changed from a six-three-three em to a five-three-four system in 1997. The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intc1ded for, _African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. There 'S no showing that it has increased .African .tvnerican participation in AP courses. 14. The Un;,,0 r~; ..... \" ies Program at Hall High School is identified but it does not address African American student:... Rather it seeks to \"target\" strong students who have the capacity of doing \"college work.\" By its terms, African American students are not targeted I To be eligible for enrollment \"strong\" students 1 ust have either a minimum grade point average of 2. 5 on half of their college preparatory course_ - 2 minimum grade point average of3 . O; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 , rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of21 on the ACT to be white or Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below tha, score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen- ~ at 3all who made minimum grade point averages of 2. 5 on at least half of their college preparator, 1rses nor did it enumerate in a chart the number by race of\"strong students who have the capacity o doing college work.\" The Universitv Studies Program_ therefore. tended to favor the stronger sti;,:ients with the better grades. the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa .11.: 2: that it favored white students! A:VOSHUA.OPP -9- 15. Page 15 of the 2001 Report reflects the enrollmem by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these :findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to participation. We note that now that the program includes most of Hall'~ white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16. Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-54l(Ross)] 1 7. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a \"qualified\" student as \"a student who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success.\" Identifying such students would involve use of \"archival data in Little Rock that would have shov.,n the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test,\" as well as 1;be views of principals and curriculum specialists A: 1JOSHUA.OPP -10- in the District \"who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ynds of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students ... \" would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this \"combination of science and reason\" he would try to help the school system\" to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for decidingwhichAfrican_American students were, \"qualified, which were likely to benefit\". For students with test scores at the lower end on statema11dated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes ''on a more selective level,\" that is .. considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18 . In the context of section 2. 6.2 of the Plan, addressing \"implement[ ation] [ of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses, \" Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced course, to ensure=-the J(!rm ]Ve use in educational psychology is scaffolding meaning support, because the histmy th.at that student who is at basic hash.ad is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five mi !es; you are going to struggle more. So I would want to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that students who we consider qual~fied can benefit. Examples would be Saturday classes, which cn'e used in a lot cf districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted instruction that gives extra support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught how to help their children get the work done at home, courses on how to study. Th.ere 's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that an at risk child or adolescent can do well in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest leveis of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A: VOSHUA. OPP -11 - at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out of the provision in Section2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of \"qualified\" African American students in advanced and .enriched courses a.rid the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementation of programs to assist these students \"in being successful\" in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activiti~s required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature; (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an .increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period; ( c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-.4.P and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and prior performance to select such classes, without an individualized consideration of the student's ability to benefit; and (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate \"scaffolding\" to assist lower performing students \"in being successful\" in advanced and enriched classes. 21 . The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of \"a training program during each of the neA'1 three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation .... \" in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such \"a training program\" for\" teachers and counselors\" \"during of the .. three years of [the Plan.]\"; [Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidarice counselor in the LRSD for approximately 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term of the Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific \"training program\" each year of the Revised A. 1JOSHUA. OPP -12- 1') f. - Desegregation and Education Plan which was designed to train \"counselors in encouragmg pa.i.--ricipation of African American students\" in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001 , she could not recall any training relating to encouraging participation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103 -04] 23. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of i\\frican American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and proforma [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)]; [Tr. at 102 (P . Watson); [Tr. at 473 , 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories of\"Pre-AP\" and \"AP\"_to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at 3 76, 11/20/01 (Lesley); CX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of .African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of .African .American students in advanced programs. The District's plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-.41' courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 3 8 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of African .A.merican pupils in .41' courses, 154, ocqmed when honors and enriched courses were ended A:'JOSHUA.OPP -13 - after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the \"other\" numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This mefil!S that the proportion of white students enrolled in .AP courses actually increased. The chart on p. 38 of the 2001 Report reflects that African American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through Ivfarch, 2001 . ' 26. At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as \"1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance\" and \"4. 'B ' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX 719 (Reg. IHCC-R; Tr. at 49 (Norman); Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01 , 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 74 7 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white. 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD RANGE OF Sl.JPPORT PROGRAM (\"SCAFFOLDING\") IS A.N ESSENTIAL ELElVlENT OF AN INl:TIATIVE WHICH PLACES POORL YPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADV A.\"NCED Ai\"'i-U ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD vVRITTEN STA.l\"IDARDS A.RE TO THE SAlvlE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBDi\\., IHBDA-R, TIIBDA-R2]. However, LRSD's implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, Associate A-VOSHUA.OPP -14- Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Sup.erintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (Si\\IPs), or other . . interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01 , at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (lviitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering .Pre-_A.P and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. ( c) The support programs actually available for Pre-_A.P and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well short of those identified as necessary by Dr. Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman); 49 1-92, .523, 524 (J. Carter); 563-68 (J. Mosby); 743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the .three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the District's Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal ofbarriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]; A: \\.JOSHUA. OPP -15- (See also Court Ex. 544; CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 3 0. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added): The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Sen1ices, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance cmd quality Assurance Committee. \" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversig,1t, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures iiecessmy to ensure that the District.f11[fills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. n1e committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based cm internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For exmnple, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar junctions of that division. 171e associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that me appropriate.for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associa~e superintenrjents are responsible for ta!ci.ng appropriate action with re.spect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent.future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to Advanced and Enriched Courses 3 1. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]; See also [Tr. at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]; [Tr. at 46 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. In Central High School, the \"flagship school\" [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the .AP A:iJOSHUA.OPP -16- teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321,323 , 324 (C. Mercer); Tr. at 336-37, 338-339, 3.53~( J. fyforcer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78, 179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the \"Teacher of Color program.\" [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSD's evidence shows its participation in this non disuict sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr. at 736-3 7 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] . b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses I 3 3. Black students emolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr. at 57., 70 (Norman); Tr. at - 102-3, 111-112 (P. Watson); Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321 -22 (C. Mercer)_; Tr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer); Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne); Tr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames); Tr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra, extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer); at 5 7 6 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and emiched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norm.an); Tr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A. 1JOSHUA.OPP -17- c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University Studies Prozram 3 5. The L~D and the university of _Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are \"co-tau!Zht bv Hall Hi!Zh School teachers\" and UALR personnel. [CX 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system\" Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit.\" [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46; [Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to emoll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the nonnal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr . at l 09- 110 (P . Watson)]; [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37. \"To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses; or a minimum overall grade average of 3. 0; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT.\" [March 2000 Report at 2 7] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 3~ through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A. \\JOSHUA.. OPP -18- 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001 -2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P Wat son)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 : 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA(%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non A.A.(%) In Cour ses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show ( a) in 2000-2001 the number of African American students participating declined by 22, 28%; (b) in 2000-2001 the number of non A.frican American students increased by 48, 60%; (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times; ( d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times; ( e) the in-school segregative effect of the program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSD reported ACT results by race for the years l. 997-1998; 1998-1999; 1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report. [at 48] These data show that the average \"composite score\" (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively; 22.2, 22.5. and 21. 5. In contrast, the average \"composite score\" for African American students for these three years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHUA .. OPP -19- 43 . Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially - segregated enro~ent of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Povehy Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 73 l (b) Many witnesses agree9 that the tuition requirement would have a racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr.110 at 110 P. Watson)]; [Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]; [Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]; [Tr. at 605-610(Daughtery)]; [Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]; [Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 200 l Report ( at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed vvhether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (\" .. to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools\" and Section 2.6 \" .. to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified African A,.mericans .. '} 45 . In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley \"proactively monitor[ing] compliance.\" d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A: IJOSH[h!... OPP -20- 2001 Reports 46. The 2qoo Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment \"high performing students in advanced classes.\" [Tr. at 28-30] There is no reference .made in the final rep6rt of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School, Ethel Dunbar, [Tr. at 588] and Pcl-t Watson, Counselor-at Hall High School [Tr at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called AVID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant to fund it [Tr. at 7 4 7 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID . The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, \"these programs would have assisted the . . District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level.\" (p. 30) 4 7. The Interim Report also promised implementation of an Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program (AS.A.P), a prin1ary purpose of which was to radicallv narrow the achievement i;rap between Afucan American and white students. (p. 31). The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, hov,rever, ASAP vanished. On p. 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that \"all program components are incorporated in t4is draft.\" Later on the page, the olan was identified as beini;r tentative and dependent uoon submittirnr a oroposal for fundini;r from the federal i;rovernment. On p. 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: \"the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools.\" A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -21 - 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English I/II Pre-AP Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This prop~sal did not focus uoon African American students in oarticular. It allowed high schools the option, for two vears. of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01' and that as ofJanuary, 2001 , the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the ne;,.1: school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase partjcipation in Al' and Pre-Al' programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African .American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report mal\u0026lt;:es reference to a \"International Baccalaureate Programme\" at Cloverdale lvliddle and McClellan High Schools. [p. 34] The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing African .American participation in AP and Pre-Al' courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district funds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that \"If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the AP and Pre-.A.P and University courses. (p. 34). 50. The IBP proITTam does not overate and was not funded I 1. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a \"good mix\" for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529, 530] Dr. Lesley did not contradict :i\\1r. Carter's statement! A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -22- 51. The District's support for the University Studies Program whi~h favors white students is to be compared, the .IBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two AP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African _American participation in AP course. (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (se~ p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not \"make\" in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refused because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (Seep. 33) When one reviews the AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science - Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i e, \"Central College.\" [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Iviercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it had fulfilled its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by \"imolementim2: programs to assist African American students to be successful in . and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to \"proQ:rams.\" The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP); Academic Enrichment and Gified in Summer (AEGIS); South East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME); SMART, a summer program for about 200 students; School Based Student Support Teams; and English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and _I\\EGIS are not held out as being for the A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -23- purpose of assisting _African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECJ:vlE was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. S:tvlART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Sharing the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers. 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report are briefly discussed again under this subsection a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. World History and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are directed toward the success in them for iLA. students. [CX 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) ,;vas contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -24- (d) African A.merican students. Fiigl:). School Reading and Wri1ingWorksho-p Iis an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist A... frican American students at being successful in advanced courses. ( e) Teachers and couns~lor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-sen:ice training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (f) The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to \"28\" including at least \"8 11 Pre-.A.P or A.P courses. There is no showing of how this (g) - will benefit African American students in being successful in AP courses. [ e.g. p. 30] The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, \"raising the bar\" for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses. (h) ,There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African iunerican students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SEC:ME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] G) The other programs either were not implememed or were not supported by use of any A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -25- I data in either report. [e.g. ex 869, pp. 40-41 , ex 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The_ summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limi,ed enrolled. [Tr. at 73 8, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any \"scaffolding\" or \"support\" programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548,549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480 .. 490,492,499, 523,529 (Carter); Tr. at 88, 93, 95 (Non:nan); Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby); Tr. at 585 (Dunbar); Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2. 6, the lVIarcb 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between l. 997-98 and 1999-00, p. 2 7. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African Americans and 129% for non African American students. With respect to the District's chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular acti,,ity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6~o increase. Non black participation, however, increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co-curricular activity general panici.pation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [Tr. at 740 (Lesley); CX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of witnesses A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -26- d' becomes more relevant ,vi.th respect to determining whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District ~eveloped are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Exnacurricular Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires that \"when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible.\" b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High Schooi Interscholastic Athletics Cheerleading Drill TeanvPep Club [CX Ex. 719] This policy also requires that \"when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities.\" [Policy JJIB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision 111 JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA.-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation.\" It also requires the development and implementation of \"a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school\" This policy does not include the required \"improvement plan\" notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Rec~ipts cmd Admissions [ CX Ex 719] . A:'JOSHUA.OPP -27- This policy requires that \"in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB ), there will be a compr~hensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students .... \" The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the A.AB .\" 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in cocurricular and e\".1:racurricular activities.1 The District staff who addressed the subject include the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie lviitchell, the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, 1'1ls. Cassandra Norman, Principal ofFair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261 , 262, 268, 269]; Dr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]; Principal Carter [Tr. at 474,492, 493 , 502, 503]; Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]; Mr. Babbs [Tr. at 13 3] . Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and ex\"1:racurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]; Michael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201 , 203-206]; Crystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr. at 322, 323]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388]. 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory Board, the following content: \"At the ti.me of the District 's Interim Complicmce Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advis01y Board ('A.AB ') for the pwpose of 1The activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs); Tr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette); Tr. at 261 -262 (Mitchell); Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -28- I} promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities cmd co-curricular activities at all schools. Th.e _A_,4B, comprised of District staff, pca-ents, student and convnzmi-ty representatives, be gem monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. Th.e focus of these discussion has been on a disvropordnate number of African American students who do not hm,e the financial resoUJ-ces to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and imvlementation include ... fun din'\u0026lt;!. accessibilitv~. Each caea has been discussed in connection with incl'easing swdentpca-ti.cipation with emphasis on assuring African American participation. [underlining added for emphasis J 60. Despite the finding of ~he AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the. acknowledged program by a patchwork of activities, not represented to function in all schools; moreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr. at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61. The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSD's consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the system's white and African families [e. 2: ., Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities Oi imbalances in participation in exirn or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by \"blaming the victim.\" They have \"choice\" she said. [Tr. at 268]. 63. Sadie Iviitchell was responsible for \"proactively monitoring compliance\" and \"taking A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -29- - appropriate action with respect to incidents ofnon-compliance . ... \" [Tr. a1 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. I:vlitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263 , emphasis added]: Q. You are awm-e. Let's just talk about the reality You were cnvare -you have , not heard the testimony. But you are cnvme, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the 1vfind, vm-ious activities were all white, were you not? J A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop aplcmfor changing that? .. A. I did not develop a plan. The buildh1g principal did Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua lntervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patt.ems? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complcrint. You are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? I onlv respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODA1s. and anvbodv else throu'?h formal complaints. So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things to determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? I did not personally Staff members did. I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in acrivities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plai.-i by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A:iJOSHUA.OPP -30- participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65 . The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents \"that expressed an opinion\" reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Iv.like Daugherty who has disassociated himself from the petition before the Court was unc?.mfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testifie.d that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in e)rtracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some of the disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. at 477, 478, 49'.2, 533 (Carter)] [Tr. at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contrary to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African _American students experienced in e\"\"'tracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -31- Tl student at SW lYiiddle School. [Tr. at 573-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, - Gillespie's supervis9r, downplayed the incident saying she didn't think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr at 274-275] Mitchell's testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance. She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a very severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11 , Deposition ofR Gillespie] 71 . Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall; and a white coach slapping an African American student at Mann 1v1iddle SchooL [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72 . The same coach involved in the choking incident at SW Middle School also called an African American female student a \"bitch.\" [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR Gillespie] 73 . Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9th grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21 , Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.J Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423 , 432] 75. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:VOSHC4..0PP -32- participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the \"A\" team [Tr. -~t 403-04]. 76 . Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, rvir. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didn't think Payne was \"smart enough\" to attend Governor's School [ Tr. at 404] 77 . Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford \"cursed\" African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr. at 322-23 ; 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61-62] and from starting a club, the purpose ofvvhich ,vas to promote interracial diversity at Central High School by a white teacher named :t'vfr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3.96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a previous history ofracial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of \"Qualified\" African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and . to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in e)rtracurricular activities .. . . \" The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2. 6 of the Revised Pian A. :;JOSHUA.OPP ..,.., - .).)- ff .. regarding e:;,._'iracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated activities and apparent barriers to /tlrican .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implememing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13 , 2.13 .'l, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities 83 . Section 2. 6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students ... to allow those students to participate in after school activities . . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity runs per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no \"elig:ible\" student has been denied. [p. 29] The - District does not define \"eligible.\" 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312-31 3]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358]; Pam Mercer [Tr.at 450]; [Tr. at 532 (l Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number ofactivities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guida.nee and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Eguitv in Academic Honors, Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, awards and scholarships. The report states that A:VOSHUA.OPP -34- \u0026lt;I, \"continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships.\" 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11. 88. The 200i Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by numb.er, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to mee! the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of94% of all parents \"that help and f!uidance was available to their child.\" There has been no dispute that counseling services were \"available\" for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that it did in an effort to provide more equity for African American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American an_d non African American students on an academic basis. 89. \\Nith respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school emollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy to improve the number of African American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling services were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student ,1/ith respect to the school's valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-li9 (Watson)] Joshua .vas instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:VOSHE4..0PP -3 5- 91 . Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by A.P courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselor's reports. [Tr. at 148-'49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 30?] In her opinion, the delivery of counseling services was \"QQQL\" [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93 . Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled .. in AJ\u0026gt; classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics when he wanted to in1prove his GPA [Tr. at 3 52] His counselor told him that he could not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his ne:;,,,'i: class assignment from a white friend had AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercer's counselor told him that he could not enroll in AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 3 54] Mercer's counselor was white. [Tr. at 3 71] 95. The counselors at Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take A.P and Pre-A.P courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers were familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercer's counselor also discouraged him from taking . L\u0026gt;J\u0026gt; Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A: 1JOSI-TU..4.. OPP -36- 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers ;was prejudiced. [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames' counselor discouraged him from taking AP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering a.fcer having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Benveen the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship an1ounts favored Central students by more than 5 to 1. ThiSTeflects the second class status/perception of McClellan High School in comparison to Central. CENTR4.L HIGH SCHOOL 98a. when i\\frican American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aaron v. Coover. 1-13 F. Supp. 855 (ED. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education of Toueka. Kansas 347 US. -183, (195-1), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8th Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 1 7 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A: 'J0Sffi.L4..0PP -,~ -.J / - .98b. In 1972, :5fteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the p.rip.ciple of school desegregation, :lvlichael Faucette, an African American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975 . During his fenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three \"tracks.\" There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically. [Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] ,, 99. During Michael Faucette's three years in the school, he was the only African American male student in his classes. He was oft.en the only African ivnerican in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucette's attendance at the school; he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader during Faucette's attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black high school graduates in this period. After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as 11r. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District. [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. Vlhile.at the University of Washington, he developed a A:1JOSHl.L4.0PP -38- 11 program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at i69 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40th anniversary of the Central High School \"crisis\", Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. _t,,.s part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howo/d, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white; he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white; he visited a. regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only tw,o white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes. observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him; Mr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12th grade. In that year, in the 12u1 grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette observed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and, as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were \"primarily black\" in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued \"virtually unchanged\" during the nex\"t two school years (the second and third years of the Revised Plan) . [Tr. at 172-75, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -39- 11,l in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr. at 303 (R. Horton); at 319 (C. Mercer); at 330 CJ.Mercer)] 104. During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) A,frican American persons, however, African American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections ofEnglish in the school as shown by the following chart: 98-99 99-00 2000-01 Total Eng sections 69 88 84 Total advanced secs 23 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 0 2 4 English teachers 8W/8B 8'W/8B 8w/8B [Tr. 1 75-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections nu 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_1740","title":"District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-07"],"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","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School administrators","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors."],"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/1740"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["88 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e \u003citem\u003e \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion in Limine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental witness list; District Court, transcript and order; District Court, plaintiff's revised witness list for the July 22, 2002, hearing; District Court, letter-order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's witness list for the July 22 hearing as revised July 23, 2002; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to strike; 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. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL -8 2002 OFF!CF. OF EGREGATIOH MONITORING u.sfo,{b~cRRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\"fltffERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL Q 1 2002 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 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being, Plaintiff's request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15, 2002, for June 21 , 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshua's FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOi as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules 6 1 1 A072A {Rev.8/82) of Civil Procedure; but, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiff's Motion forthwith, and request a hearing--if such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DA TED this I 9-:f day of July, 2002. UNITED sT ATESDISTc JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 1/V!Tb:(oE 58 AND/OR~7~ F9R CP r,;, , ~ ..,___ GY _ - - '\" _ f_t:___ I -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402 and 403 . The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated - by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) Th[ e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., (proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"(I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). - \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials bad knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action.\" Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2 action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S . 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate; (2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality; and (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3 Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan 8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan 8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan 8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403 . 4 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 5 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 A072A (Rev.8/82) I O!INO~ NOl!VU3YD3S3Q d030WO zooz s- 1nr u.fo!k~QAr ... , :\\ ;~l'\\~U ::JJi \\i :.il .J :I g EASn fiN Ol6i/ii1CT MH\u0026lt;AN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 z SA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSD's request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshua's FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshua's counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing ifhe deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshua's counsel's July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshua's counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion, and \"then allow either party to request a hearing.\" This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshua's counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in \"haste\" because LRSD's motion papers declared an \"emergency\" and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce A072A {Rev.8/82) documents pursuant to Joshua's FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSD's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-104 provides a \"potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days [to Joshua's FOI requests] .\" This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5 :00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not \"vexed\" with counsel--somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOi requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring ofLRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. J.n LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1386 (8th Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed \"a great deal of weight\" on the fact that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring,\" which the Court found to be \"essential.\" Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshua's counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshua 's ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11 , 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDE~,- DATED this 1 ~ day of July, 2002. W~R-~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE -3- JUL . 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOH.,.~ W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable Judge William R Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock. AR 72201 ATToRNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L1TrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsinule - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wtlson: NO .521 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 liEND81!SOl'I RoAD Ltmz Rocr, ~ 72210 l'HON\u0026amp;: (501) 372-3425 J\u0026lt;'AX (501) 372-3428 r.!MA!r..: mchonry,i@awbGll.not - I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Wtlliams and Joe Bryant I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems so_mewhat vexed ~el. I believe the Court would not be ~ were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the follo'Wing explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the District's record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the District's infonnation by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8th Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. BetWeen 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Court's conclusion that the requested information \"appears quite certainn to JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.521 P.3/3 be \"not timely\". The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exlnoits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Heller's office delivered bis exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Court's comments that the requests are pot pertinent to the three rernainine issues in this case as the case relates to the District's compliance as of March 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshua's monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon.. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position ofbeing the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Lt~ Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based on the information available at)v1ay j _t 2002,;frie ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, iUbj'eb(to periodic adJustrr.i'knis: 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. A072A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING FIL~e EAS ~ S. 1~~ RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT T RN'2Ji 1 ~NSA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL - 5 2002 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 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that: (1) because Joshua's witness list fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5 :30 p.m. on July 10, 2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue; (2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Court's May 15 Order; (3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshua's counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses; (4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; (5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High 6 1 6 A072A (Rev.8/82) School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402, and 403; (6) Joshua's failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their \"thirty minutes of true rebuttal\" prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002; and (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSD's Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSD's Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSD's Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11f DA TED this f day of July, 2002. UNITED STATESDlSTRIC DG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON 7/6/0'6 gy_O-c~,-_=-_..~,a.-- -2- ---- -- RECEIVED .- - -- 'JUL 1 O 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - . ; /:JLt:::,o .. - E.A.s,f;p. Dtsr g;;;. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT Noisr~;g~ uRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL OB KA.ivsAs WESTERN_DIVISION JAMs W 2002 By: MccoR MACK 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 JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD 1. Joshua Intervenors ' Witness List , CLERK p.1,,1\u0026lt;,\u0026lt;Dl.A ,,...._.u. F [f::RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) \"provide[s] a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue\" only on a \"tongue in cheek\" basis. The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors ' witnesses are employees.1 Moreover, at least 11 oflntervenors' witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors ' list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5 :00 p.m. on 1Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1- July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s) . . Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors' effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, \"LRSD Quarterly Status Reports,\" was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony, with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773 , 775 rebuttal: 743,747,749, 750,755 , 757,758,759,760,762,763 , 764,779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783 , 784 -2- 5. Testimony from Jim Mosbv and Jodv Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding \"their recent removal as principals.\" 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSD's testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators ' responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791 , dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSD's efforts \"to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors ... \" [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g., Revised ,., -.)- Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors ' response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other - elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors ' proof will be consistent with this fran1ework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain offulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, John -W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has/been senTby fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ,?~ day of l-,, 1, ----:-2002: -r:;:-- 'I // I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis l'l. H en FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I / Joen W. Walker -5- J VHl'i W WHLKt.t-\u0026lt; t-' H N0 . 571 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 8, 2002 To: Ms. Ann Brawn Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Sender: Jolm W. Walker P. l/6 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758'\u0026gt;\" The information conr.a.ined uu:his fucsimile message is atto111ey privileged and confidential information intended only fur the use of the individual or entity named aoove. !f the reader of this m~sagc is not the intended recipient, or me emp1oyee or agent responsible to deliver it fo the inrended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communicttion Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. R CEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTu.folb~cPuRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 9 2002 J L 11 2002 OFFICE OF OESEG EGATION MONITORING A072A (Rev.8/82) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Earlier today, United States Magistrate Judge Tom Ray conducted a hearing to receive the parties ' pre-marked exhibits, exhibit lists, witness lists, and witness statements as provided for in paragraph 5 of my May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order. In addition, at my request, Judge Ray also addressed several housekeeping matters associated with the hearing that I have scheduled for 8 :30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002, on LRSD's Motion In Limine. I have now reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Judge Ray, and want to reiterate several points covered during that hearing. First, the evidentiary hearing that is scheduled to commence before me at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002, is limited to testimony and other evidence relevant to LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations in three specific areas of the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2); (2) extracurricular activities ( 2.6); and (3) guidance A072A (Rev.8/82) counseling ( 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 ). The only other evidence the Court will receive during the July 22 hearing will be limited to: (a) LRSD's obligation of good faith( 2.1), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) LRSD's obligations regarding African-American students' achievement ( 2.7), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. 1 Second, after reviewing Joshua's witness list and witness statements, it appears to me that some or all of the anticipated testimony of a number of their witnesses falls outside the scope of the July 22 evidentiary hearing, as defined above, and as defined earlier by Judge Wright, and by my Order of May 9. I assume these potential problems will be cured by the supplemental witness lists and statements that Joshua and LRSD will file by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. In connection with those supplemental witness lists and statements, I expect both sides to comply fully with each and every requirement of paragraph 3 of my May 15 Scheduling Order. Third, I want to reiterate that I will be continuing the practice followed by Judge Wright of allocating and keeping time for each side during the July 22 hearing. As my May 15 Scheduling Order makes clear, Joshua and LRSD are each allocated twenty hours to present their cases. Each side should keep this overall time constraint in mind in calling and examining their witnesses. Absent compelling circumstances, I do not intend to give either side more than their allocated twenty hours. 11 am mindful that Joshua also will be allowed thirty minutes at the beginning of the July 22 hearing to call Ann Marshall and Gene Jones as rebuttal witnesses on the three issues tried to conclusion during the earlier evidentiary hearings before Judge Wright: (1) good faith; (2) African-American student achievement; and (3) student discipline. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) Finally, I have reviewed the so-called \"rebuttal exhibits\" that Joshua intends to introduce during the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. Many of these rebuttal exhibits appear to be documents that were available and could have, and, if they wanted them in evidence, should have, been introduced by Joshua in their case in chief. During the July 12 hearing, Joshua's counsel should be prepared to address how those exhibits constitute true rebuttal documents. The lawyers for the parties, especially the lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, should have someone watching their fax machines commencing no later than 8:30 a.m. this Thursday, July 11. It is possible that I will enter an Order early Thursday morning in response to filings made by these parties Wednesday afternoon. The Order may require additional work before the hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday, July12. IT IS SO ORDERED#. DATED this qr aay of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRIC'i'JUDGE -3- FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas JAester,'1 Division Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 TO: Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones . 376-2147 376-9442 3i5-1027 221-3331 374-4187 682- 2591 371-0100 Stevejones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Anne Marshaii DATE: There are _\"f.J pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. Z:0/10 3rnrl MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wiison, J; U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,..,~ \"R 7,,0, ~,, I \"-\"-J ~ ,, t RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFFICEOF ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors submit their witness list in response to the Court's several directives regarding these matters. Joshua is presenting below a summary of the testimony in some detail of each witness it will call on direct. Joshua is presenting a table of the name of each witness, the expected time each witness will take on direct examination and the approximate time of the appearance of each witness. The times of the appearances of each witness are presented taking into account an equal an1ount of cross examination time by the plaintiff. Possible times for lunch breaks are included. In presenting the matter in this manner, we do not intend to offend the Court by suggesting the exact times of breaks and/or for lunch, nor do wish to offend the Court by presenting this document in this fashion. The manner in which we present it will provide the Court and the parties a timeline of expected testimonial events and provide easy and ready reference to each forthcoming event. We expect our case in chief to be approximately 11 hours (660 minutes). We expect to use the remaining time for either cross examination or for rebuttal (up to two hours). -1- SADIE MITCHELL: The issues Sadie Mitchell will address are extra-curricular activities and guidance counseling. Her respective testimony is that Joshua raised issues of disparate treatment with respect to extra-curricular activities for which she or some subordinate made responses. She will address examples such as discrimination in 9th grade athletics, band, scouts, choir, mock trial, quiz bowl, cheerleaders and the activities wherein participation by race is reflected in the various student yearbooks. She will also address the complaints regarding student honors and efforts to improve minority paiiicipation in AP and honors type activities particularly at Central and Hall High Schools. She will also relate to the inadequacy of data collection regarding extra-cunicular activities and the decision to aggregate rather than disaggregate activity data. She will confirm that aggregation of the data presents a false picture of activity participation in the respective schools which include all the secondary schools. She will also address the failme rates in advanced placement courses as reflected in the Quarterly Reports previously discussed before Judge Wright. JUNIOUS BABBS: Junious Babbs will address the identification of particular athletic programs and other activities with limited African American participation and plans for remediation, review of each school's annual guidance report to identify areas of limited service to African American students such as a) course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher education opportunities; b) access to financial aid; and c) course enrollment to help to facilitate graduation. He will also address his investigation into the participation and inequities thereof of minority students in AP courses and the passing and failure rates related thereto. MS. SHARON BROOKS: Ms. Sharon Brooks will testify regarding her placement of -2- elementary school African American boys without utilization of counseling services for a period of two months. She will address failure to provide a teacher and a counselor for those boys, whom she separated from the girls. DR. MICHAEL FAUCETTE: Dr. Michael Faucette, a teacher at Central High School, will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extra-curricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central high School; the disparate effect of AP courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other oppo1iunities; and he will discuss the issue of the District's good faith compliance. MS. PAM MERCER: Ms. Pam Mercer, an African American parent, will discuss the District's good faith establishment and administration of AP courses at Central High School, the exclusion of African American students therefrom, the privileges extended by AP teachers and activities sponsors to white students, counseling of students for placement in AP courses and the racial atmosphere which exists within AP classes. She will discuss her membership on the Activities Advisory Board for the school district and her dissatisfaction with its efforts. CRYSTAL MERCER: Crystal Mercer will discuss her dissatisfaction with guidance counseling services with respect to the following areas: access to financial aid and course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational oppo1iunities. JASON MERCER: Jason Mercer will discuss his dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure more African American student participation in AP courses. He will also discuss content ., -.)- of Exhibit 797. D.J. THAMES and A VIS THAMES: D.J. Thames, student at Fair High School and Avis Thames, his mother. Their testimony will cover their dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure fair participation in extra-curricular activities such as football. ROMONA HORTON: RomonaHorton,parentof students at Central High School and Forest Heights Jr. High School will testify regarding her dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to encourage her children's participation and retention in Pre AP and AP courses at their respective schools. She will also testify regarding her dissatisfaction with counseling services with respect to her children's success in the classes, access to financial aid and course emollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational opportunities. In addition to testimony regarding dissatisfaction with her children's participation in AP, she will also address the use of racial slurs by an AP teacher. She will also discuss the District's response to her complaints. JODIE CARTER: Jodie Carter will discuss special problems with AP classes in the school district as a whole and at McClellan High School in particular. He will specifically relate to the manner in which courses are constituted at the various schools. The problem with staffing the classes and in filling the classes at the various schools. He will discuss his understanding of guidance counseling as it relates to AP placement, participation in extra-curricular activities and the District's good faith. He will specifically relate to problems that he has observed regarding school board members' support of AP classes, guidance counseling and extra-curricular activities. He will discuss the issue ofracial placement and how the counseling system has worked in his observation at the school district over time. This necessarily will include the varying levels of support provided by the central administration with respect to AP courses, guidance counseling and extra-curricular -4- activities at McClellan in comparison to Parkview and Central High School. MS. DOROTHY MCDONALD: Ms. Dorothy McDonald will discuss counseling in general and at McClellan High School in particular. She will discuss the way counseling has a more negative impact on African Americans than white students at McClellan High School and as she understands it to be at other schools based upon her meetings with JoEvelyn Elston and other persons who oversee and administer the other counseling progran1s. MS. CASSANDRA NORMAN: Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal at J.A. Fair High School will discuss counseling services, placement in pre AP and AP classes at both the middle and Jr. High school and high school and how those courses differ from similar courses at Central and Parkview High Schools. She will discuss AP class sizes, expenditures, teacher turnover and the support of school administrators for her school with respect to these issues. She will address issues regarding counseling within Fair and the problems with a counselor that she had whodid not address the issues in equitable way regarding African American students. CHRIS PAYNE: Chris Payne a former student at J.A. Fair High School will discuss race discrimination in extra-curricular activities. His efforts to participate in the Quiz Bowl at Fair, counseling that he received at Fair while he was there, and the fact that he did not feel that he was fairly treated with respect to those subjects. MR. KENNETH MOORE: Mr. Kenneth Moore will discuss extra-curricular activities, counseling and good faith compliance. His testimony will relate to his experiences at Hall and Fair High Schools and how counseling works at those schools to the detriment of African American students with respect to their participation in extra-curricular activities and with respect to their AP type placements. -5- MR. RAY GILLESPIE: Mr. Ray Gillespie will discuss his role with respect to overseeing the athletic extra-curricular programs and activities and assisting in the monitoring of school programs at the direction of Les Carnine to ostensibly assure eliminating racial discrimination. He will testify regarding the lack of suppo1i that he received in his efforts to achieve equity and his conclusion that African American students and staff are treated differently with respect to these subject areas in comparison to similarly situated white persons. MR. JIMMY MOSBY: Mr. Jimmy Mosby will discuss guidance counseling, extra-curricular activities and pre AP courses during his tenure at Hall High School and at Southwest Middle School. He will address the District's lack of support with respect to pre AP and cow1seling. MS. SUE STRICKLAND: Ms. Sue Strickland will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. Ms. Strickland will also address the lack of truthfulness by Superintendent Carnine with respect to communication with the school board. DR. KA THERINE MITCHELL: Dr. Katherine Mitchell will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. DR. MICHAEL DAUGHTERY: Dr.Michael Daughtery will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. He will discuss his efforts to understand the necessity for relating counseling to AP and pre AP placement, monitoring counseling programs and AP programs and his efforts to have AP programs -6- to become more inclusive for minority students. He will discuss how students can be expected to succeed in AP courses in middle and high schools if they haven't been taught and properly counseled in the earlier grades. DR. TERRENCE ROBERTS: Dr. Tenence Roberts is a District Consultant regarding desegregation activities. He will address the necessity for there to be a correlation between guidance counseling and placement in AP courses. He will discuss the manner in which he has been used by the District to train teachers with respect to these subjects in particular and other subjects in general in Little Rock. Counsel is endeavoring to have him available on either July 23 rd or July 24th . He lives in California and travel arrangements have not been made. DR. STEVEN ROSS: Dr. Steven Ross will testify about the District's good faith compliance, AP courses. He will also discuss the need for criteria for placement and whether all students may be qualified in the absence of standards for placement in AP courses without earlier foundations and specific training. MS. ETHEL DUNBAR: Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance cotmseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. REBUTTAL Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Ann Marshall 7/22/02 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 15 Gene Jones 7/22/02 15 -7- DIRECT EXAMINATION Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Sadie Mitchell 7/22/02 9:30 a.m. 30 Junious Babbs 7/22/02 10:30 a.m. 30 Sharon Brooks 7/22/02 11 :30 a.m. 15 7/22/02 Lunch 12-1:00 p.m. 60 Dr. Michael Faucette 7/22/02 1:00 p.m. 90 Pam Mercer 7/22/02 4:00 p.m. 30 Crystal Mercer 7/22/02 5: 00 p.m. 10 Jason Mercer 7/22/02 5:20 p.m. 15 D .J. Thames/ A vis Thames 7/22/02 6:30 p.m. 15 Romona Horton 7/23/02 8:30 a.m. 30 Jodie Carter 7/23/02 9:30 a.m 120 7/23/02 Lunch 12- 1 :00 p.m. 60 Dorothy McDonald 7/23/02 2:30 p.m. 15 Cassandra Norman 7/23/02 3:00 p.m. 45 Chris Payne 7/23/02 4:30 p.m. 10 Kenneth Moore 7/23/02 4:50 p.m. 15 Ray Gillespie 7/23/02 5:20 p.m. 15 Jimmy Mosby 7/24/02 8:30 a.m. 15 Sue Strickland 7/24/02 9:00 a.m. 10 Dr. Katherine Mitchell 7/24/02 9:20 a.m. 10 Dr. Michael Daughtery 7/24/02 9:40 a.m. 30 Dr. Terrence Roberts 7/24/02 10:40 a.m. 30 -8- Dr. Steven Ross 7/24/02 Ms. Ethel Dunbar 7/24/02 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781 ) 862-1955 11 :40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,,-,, Jdhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 vJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -9- 30 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 10th day of July, 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I . ,,('(;~~--/:.,/ J,ohn W. Walker . RiCEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFACEOF - SEGREGATION MONITORING J:JL 1 O 2~:;, JAMES W r, :,..c .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO .- ., -ORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. 1v1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA lNTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT AL WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua filed its Witness List earlier today. Inadvertently omitted was the name of Ms. Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School. Her name is being submitted as a witness who will address the District 's counseling programs, her instructions as to how they are to be implemented and how they are in fact implemented at Hall High School. She will address the counseling role for placement into Pre-AP, AP and Honors courses and she will relate to the counseling with respect to scholarships and other opportunities as well as course enrollment . Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. We urge to allow us to use her testimony on either the 23 rd or 241h if we are making substantial progress and have additional time we have not used in our case and chief. Otherwise her testimony will that of Ms. Ethel Dunbar on July 24th at approximately 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman - MA Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1 955 \"'John W o.-64046 JOHNW. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on 1~10'11 ~-ay of ~uly , 2092. \\ Ml , ! I ' / -~ / \";c' L}/ -' / . ~ /Ar~-;/ tz~-tt i \\, RECEIVED FILED U,S, DISTRICT COURT EASTE~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1,2 2002 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. , 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held yesterday afternoon. The directions in this transcript are the orders of the Court. - ord.LRSDI IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE VV!TH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ FRCP oN_!Jd__O-Od::'BY -,~~----'-~=- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . No. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Little Rock, Arkansas July 9, 2002 4:45 P.M. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., APPEARANCES: Intervenors. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON United States District Judge. For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 For the Defendant: (No appearance. ) Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 1 For Joshua Intervenors: ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQ. John Walker, P.A. 2 1723 Broadway 3 4 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Proceedings reported by machine stenography; transcript 5 prepared by computer . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: All right, we're having a telephone 3 3 conference hearing this afternoon on the record in Little Rock 4 School District against Pulaski County, et al. It's 5 LR-C-82-866. This conference is regarding a letter that was 6 just hand delivered to me dated July 9 from Mr. Walker and Mr. 7 Pressman. It shows a copy to Mr. Heller. I am going to 8 notify by letter in the morning other lawyers of this 9 telephone conference so that they can order a transcript of 10 this hearing if they want to from Ms. Fant. But in any event, 11 I want to address this letter, and I will just start with the 12 first paragraph. Apparently Joshua got Exhibits 793 and 801 13 over to Judge Ray's courtroom deputy, Ms. Swanson, this 14 afternoon as was directed by Judge Ray this morning. By the 15 way, Judge Ray is here in my conference room. But I 16 understand there are other exhibits that have not been brought 17 over for marking, which are 794, 799 and 800 and I'm puzzled. 18 What's the problem with them, Mr. Pressman? 19 MR. PRESSMAN: One of the exhibits is five 20 yearbooks, and we were told that we could pick up the year- 21 books at five different high schools. 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. MR. PRESSMAN: And take them away to copy. And Mr. 24 Walker wasn't here. I didn't know how to handle that. 25 THE COURT: Okay, I will give you -- 794 and 799 and Carolyn s. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 800 I will give you until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow to do what's 2 necessary to have them delivered to Ms. Swanson by 2:00 p.m. 3 All right, are there other exhibits that we need to 4 address? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: All right, let's look at paragraph 1 of the letter; that he and Judge Wilson are apprised of the following position: \"One, we want to reserve for rebuttal that part of our 20 hours which we do not utilize in our case in chief.\" I'll, of course, allow you to reserve a certain 4 11 amount of time for rebuttal. I will remind you again that I'm 12 big on true rebuttal, not just more evidence that could have 13 been introduced during your case in chief. And I wouldn't 14 allow you, for example, to put on five hours of testimony and 15 reserve 15. What do you want? About an hour or two hours for 16 rebuttal, Mr. Pressman? 17 MR. PRESSMAN: That was -- that was -- that's what 18 Mr. Walker told me. He has handled this. 19 THE COURT: Is Mr. Walker there with you? 20 21 22 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No, he's at the courthouse. THE COURT: Well, I will give you two hours for rebuttal and you notify me by 2:00 p .m. tomorrow by fax -Judge Ray and me both by fax and the other parties if you want 24 more than two hours reserved for rebuttal. I'm not inclined 25 to reserve much more than that, but I will give you an Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunity to address that. If you haven't addressed it by 2:00 p.m., I will assume that two hours is satisfactory with you. Now the next sentence in paragraph 1 I find quite disturbing. It says, and I quote: \"We'll attempt to provide a more specific response regarding rebuttal time in our supplemental document regarding our witnesses.\" Now, I entered this order in May directing the identity of witnesses and detailed statements with respect to 5 10 what they were going to say, and that order was not met. The 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 requirements of that order were not met. Judge Ray today extended that until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. As I understand, Mr. Walker was in the courtroom part of the time, at least, but I'm not sure I understand what \"attempt\" -- why you use \"attempt\" rather than say \"we will comply.\" If you will look at the title of that document that I entered back in May or those two documents, the word \"Order\" is there, not 18 suggestion. 19 And so would you address .that, what the problem is 20 with that, not getting that detailed statement or just 21 attempting to do it? 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESSMAN: I have not been involved in the development of the facts regarding these three areas. I was asked to do this hearing because Mr. Walker was not available. THE COURT: Well, of course, he knew well in advance Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of the trial before Judge Howard he was going to have it and he's had since May to meet those directions. You need to get him tonight and tell him that I'm going to take a very dim look at an attempt rather than a full compliance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Will you pass that message on to him specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it very much. In paragraph number 2, I'm going to solve that 9 problem real quickly. Just assume that the other side will 10 take as long for cross-examination as you take for direct and 11 we'll worry about whether I ask questions or not. That won't 12 13 14 15 count against you, of course, so that should make it very easy. Any problems with that? MR. PRESSMAN: I will just we'll comply. I just 16 wish to say that I think that attorneys -- it's proper to 17 inform the Court if you feel that the Court's orders are 18 unreasonable, and that was the reaction that we had to these 19 orders about timing. 20 21 THE COURT: What's unreasonable about it? MR. PRESSMAN: Because these things just can't be, 22 you know, determined with that degree of precision. 6 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, you know, of course, judges across the country are doing this regularly. I know one judge from -- district judge in Chicago who is now in the last couple of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 years been promoted to the Seventh Circuit who runs two stop 2 watches, and they count objections against your time if you 3 don't win them, so I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 4 So I'm directing that you comply with it . And, like I say, 5 just give your time for direct examination and assume the 6 other side is going to take the exact same amount of time for 7 cross so you can calculate it. 8 Now I will say this, and I hesitate to say it 9 because I don't want to sound like I will give too much 7 10 leeway. You have a total amount of time here so if you want to 11 go 30 minutes on a witness that you estimated at 20 and take 12 13 14 it off another witness, that's all right. The total amount of time, that is the main thing. However, I'm not going to allow taking much more than your estimated time because what will 15 happen we'll get down to the end and you say, \"I have the most 16 crucial witness I've got in the whole case and I don't have 17 any time to put them on . \" So you'll have to stick pretty 18 close to your projected time . So that issue has been 19 resolved. 20 On the next page, the last page, the second page: 21 \"Last, we want to again point out we do not have the same 22 ability as the LRSD to control the order in which our 23 witnesses will appear. We are not dealing with persons who 24 25 are our employees.\" I'll cure the problem right now. Subpoena your witnesses for 8:15 on July the 22nd. Have them Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 all there . I will get them in the courtroom, swear them in, 2 and tell them to either stay at the courthouse or be where 8 3 they can be reached by telephone so you can get them there. I 4 will take that burden off your back, Mr. Pressman. 5 Hello? 6 7 8 9 10 11 fees? 12 13 MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Doesn't that solve it? MR. PRESSMAN: Okay . Yes, it solves it. THE COURT: All right. MR. PRESSMAN: I guess we have to pay them witness THE COURT: I would assume. It's very unlikely -- if the exhibits are not over 14 here by 2 : 00 p . m. tomorrow that we have designated, it's very 15 unlikely I will allow their use at the trial. 16 Are there any other issues that we can resolve at 17 this point? If not, I'm going to sign off. 18 19 Honor. 20 21 MR. HELLER: We haven't seen that letter, Your THE COURT: Who's speaking? MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. This is Chris Heller. But 22 it sounds like the issues have been covered and we certainly 23 don't have any other issues at this point. 24 25 THE COURT: All right. How about you, Mr . Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't have any other issues, Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 9 1 but I think that Your Honor's approach doesn't account for the 2 3 4 5 6 7 different kind of practice that Mr. Walker has from a large law firm that has a school system as a client. THE COURT: In what respect does it not account for it. What specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Because there aren't the same resources available. Mr. Walker is a unique resource in 8 Arkansas. People are constantly calling him from all over the 9 10 11 12 13 14 state every day about their civil rights problems. His time is called upon from scores of different directions. He has a lot of pressures on his time. He does the best he can within that context, and it's not as easy to comply with these kinds of directives for him as it is for a large law firm. THE COURT: Well, you know, I practiced for many 15 years as a solo practitioner in a small firm and judges 16 imposed these burdens on me regularly, and I just figured that 17 I had to double up. Of course, I was a mere street lawyer, 18 but I would suspect I probably got as much or half as much 19 again number of phone calls as Mr. Walker gets during the day, 20 so he's had since May to do this. This is a major trial. I 21 don't believe he has a more major trial. You are here, so it 22 23 24 looks to me like, Mr. Pressman, since you're one of the counsel of record you may need to stay hooked in here real tight and make sure the deadlines are met. I want you to 25 convey this to Mr. Walker very distinctly. I am not going to Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 10 1 treat him differently than I treat other lawyers. Lawyers in 2 big firms -- I happen to have had the happy experience of 3 being in a big firm myself for over two and a half years in 4 the litigation department, and the lawyers are -- each one has 5 an extremely busy practice. Now we all have a tendency when 6 we are not in one of the big firms to say, \"Oh, they've got a 7 hundred or 80 lawyers up there,\" but unfortunately each of the 8 80 or 70 lawyers has -- they are as busy as a solo 9 practitioner. They have their own solo practice, in effect. 10 I have been there, done that, and I used to get, \"You're at a 11 big firm. You\"ve got five partners that can do this, that or 12 the other.\" So I am distinctly unimpressed with that 13 position. I appreciate your expressing it and I'm glad you 14 did because it gives me an opportunity to make it clear that 15 I'm going to hold Mr. Walker to the same standard that I'm 16 going to hold the lawyers representing the other parties. 17 Everybody is going to be treated equally. 18 Is there anything else that we can bring up? I will 19 be happy to hear anything else; an objection, a complaint, 20 whatever else. I'm in a rulifying and commenting mood. 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we don't have anything. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman? 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No. I mean, I just basically 24 disagree with your positions but that's -- you're the Judge. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman, you know, at least half of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 11 1 the lawyers in every case I have disagree with my position and 2 that's one of the wonderful reasons that we have an Eighth 3 Circuit in case I don't do right. But I do appreciate your 4 comments. I take them into consideration. I just I don't 5 agree with your position and particularly not that I should 6 treat Mr. Walker differently than I should another lawyer. I 7 would consider that a very, very bad thing if I did that to 8 any lawyer . 9 All right. There being nothing else that I hear 10 from the lawyers, I want to thank you all for taking this call 11 on short notice and you go have a good evening to the extent 12 you can after my rulings. 13 MR. HELLER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. PRESSMAN: All right . Thanks. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (At 5:00 p.m., the above-entitled proceedings were adjourned. ) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Carolyn S. Fant, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings in ~e above-ent Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REVISED WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING RECEIVED JUL 1 l 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22 , 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimon y: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American enrollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program 's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study Page I of 8 conducted by a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by AfricanAmerican students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of African-American students who did not participate; describe the new grants that have been awarded to several elementary schools to support their school improvement efforts, especially in reading/writing literacy; discuss the results of the State Benchmark examinations for grades 4, 6, and 8 (if available by the hearing date); discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK-12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District 's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001-the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; describe the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board in the implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform, especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school Page 2 of 8 - - ---- levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. Dr. Lesley will also update her testimony from November 2001 related to how she sees the District continuing to improve in the next several years. The District's efforts must also be consistent with the requirements of the new federal \"No Child Left Behind\" legislation. Accordingly, Dr. Lesley will explain the District's plan for implementing these new requirements and responding to the new accountability requirements, including the support for low-performing schools. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, JBA, JBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan 2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of African-American students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the I 999-2000 school year; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African-American teachers thought that activities Page 3 of 8 were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the Activities Advisory Board has begun functioning; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from I :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, JBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarsh.ip opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the Page 4 of 8 data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6, 2.6 .2, 2. 6.3, 2.11 and 2.11 .1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the - District. She will testify that the District has adopted the Total Quality Management philosophy and the principles underlying that philosophy; that the District has been awarded Quality Interest Award and Quality Commitment Award; that Campus Leadership Teams play an important role in school improvement; that the District has provided extensive training to make Campus Leadership Teams successful; that each school develops a school improvement plan each year, focusing on improving achievement in literacy and math; and that an important part of the District's strategy for improving achievement of African-American students is encouraging more African-American student to enroll in more rigorous academic courses. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even ifno longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Mitchell may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 5 of 8 5. Dr. Ken James. Dr. James will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. James is the current Superintendent of the District and has held that position for one year. Dr. James will testify that he supports and intends to follow District policies which require compliance with the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. Dr. James will also discuss the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board, its implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform and the importance of students taking a rigorous program of study. Dr. James may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua lntervenors during their case. 6. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. - until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan, Constitution and federal civil rights statutes; that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan; that a representative of the Joshua Intervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua lntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Intervenors appeared on July Page 6 of 8 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect that Joy Springer appeared on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua lntervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a - timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan 8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 7 of 8 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY!fjflzt1~- C. Fendley,Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail or as otherwise indicated on July 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 2001 \\dcs-uniwy-wimcss-list- 7-22-02-revised.wpd Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 J~\u0026lt;=.F'endCley, fr -~ Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u r-:,S~ll; RRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 JUL 1 5 2002 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 11, 2002 LETTER-ORDER BY FAX Mr. John Walker 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell 11 800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Dennis Hansen 111 Center Street, Suite l 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: The filings yesterday appear to meet most of the requirements of paragraph 3 of the May 15 order. Joshua does need to file -- today -- a detailed statement of the expected testimony of their two rebuttal witnesses. It appears that Joshua has provided the exhibits referenced in LRSD's Motion in Limine. Joshua's filing of July 8 indicates that the testimony of Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs will not be duplicative -- and the questioning of each witness will only be for ten minutes. It appears that Joshua has removed some of the \"rebuttal\" exhibits listed earlier. I will take a look-see at the other exhibits at the hearing which commences at 8:30 in the morning, unless LRSD concedes that Joshua's response renders those remaining relevant for rebuttal. LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Two Joshua indicates, in its July 8 pleading, that it does not intend to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. As long as the questioning of these two witnesses (as well as all the other witnesses) relates only to the three remaining issues, there should be no problem. Back to Joshua's two rebuttal witnesses. LRSD argues that they can't provide true rebuttal testimony, but I cannot rule on this point until I see the detailed summary of their expected testimony -- which, as noted above -- must be filed today. Turning now to Joshua Exhibit 767-776, 791 (Ms. Springer's letters). First off, let me state that I will not apply Monell in this case. That 1978 case, involving a Section 1983 complaint, is not applicable in school desegregation cases, in my view. The LRSD's objection to my ruling on this point is denied, and its exception is saved. I now quote from Joshua's July 8 filing with respect to these exhibits: The Joshua intervener should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell . I will have to be more fully advised in the premises, during the hearing in the morning, as to the exact meaning of the above-quoted paragraph. Joshua's July 8 filing also indicates that these exhibits are offered to show \"notice.\" I assume that this means that Joshua is not offering them to prove truth of the contents. If this is correct, it removes the statements from the definition of hearsay, and I must turn to the question of whether \"notice\", in this manner, is admissible, and, if so, under what theory. In view of my ruling, above, on Monell, I see no reason to go further with respect to LRSD's \"relevance generally.\" I can't put my finger on the objection right now, but, as I recall, LRSD objected to Joshua's designation of LRSD's exhibits as Joshua's exhibits too. If I recall the objection correctly, it is overruled, and LRSD's exception is saved. While courthouse lore is often contrary to established law, it has been the practice of trial lawyers in this state, since the mind of man and woman runneth not to the contrary, to designate the other party's exhibits as their own. LRSD contends (again, as I recall it) that this designation is contrary to some provision in the May LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Three l 5 order. If that order prohibited this specific designation, I'm going to ignore that particular portion of the order (in this context). If there are other issues that should be addressed in the morning, I would be much obliged if the parties would send Judge Ray and me a fax today identifying those issues. Thank you. ci!il~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk of the Court RECEIVED 9N1110llNOW NOllYD3\\193S30 JUL 1 s 2002 United States District Court ~033wo --::aor--______EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTIU~rr _ ARI\u0026lt;ANSAS ZOOZ 8 1 1nr - OFACEOF T TTT: r: Rnr'f(Fcltm~~SION rnE ii.R~Ilg~~OM~E~~cr EAST~r1f.Pc1STAICT ARK'lTNSAs ~~~jl:I JUL 1\"' 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a!.MES W McCORMACK, CLERK CASE NIBvffiER: 4 : 82CV008, ,_..,.,. 1--:- . B~: DEP. C[ERKI -- TnO~L'\\S R..~Y Christopner Eelle:::-, et al. Sam Jones, et a1. u!v\" 9, ?QQ? \\ ~a'fi,1.yn Fant \\ FsF Swapsol! . - - x~ 7-~-i;: - ' :x ~~b ~ I I ::x '/ Yip I I ex 'JtP \\ \\ \\ I \\ ~ 4S \\ \\ \\ I \\ I ex 1 5,) I ( I I I ex '757 I l I I I ex 153 I \\ I I I 1 cxt~ I ) \\ \\ \\ ~,si; I I I I . . $:~~;ot;;,ff'g;_\\vc.~ ~o' l~-r1'14\"~ ~ Tu-14-eo r ~ ~ -/2, ~ ~-a {~ ~qo) (-~ ~ 0'1-;;;i...q-ot ~ _,, ~\u0026lt;;J.\u0026amp;,.._ . hw--,.._-ft ~ H-% tL,v/., ~,~-t ~7-.J.-O ;,' . /07) I t-~ ~ I I - I le -oo ~~ ~ ~ 'To \\~~ I c;__ - mi:iJ_ cue~ 03 -01 -o 1 0 . 1-l T ~ 0-,ui_ /14 w....;t cf.d_-fa, C:3-07-D( (l.f:/)..'i/11-f .f'(i/4 ; I It,, ::..n,._d.J.. clLW D 7-b--ul (rfJr.ri - -le l liJ(),\\J. (h.ti_ - ~ ~ D7-11p-ot {. g~ 1 (-r,,..\u0026amp;.l I.,~ o\u0026lt;o-~g--01 c,:o\u0026lt;:sa..-f'r\u0026lt;- F H~ ~ -fc o-r,J2.-n4,..;,2 ,~ ~ ~I ( P. tq;;\u0026gt;. tL.d /q 3 \\ u cv ~ :J ;o United States District Court ________E_ AS_TE_RN __ DtSTIUCT OF --:::-=:ARKAN==-~SA~S _______ I T TTTJ 'C' Barz DIVISION [T ROCK SCF.OOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJ11BER: 4: 8 2CVOO! J:-iHO~L\u0026gt;\\S RAY I ..._,...Ch:- 11 al 1-- r1.stopne= J::ie_ er, et . Sam jones, et al . .!u!v' 9, 2002 l.aTI,1yn Fant I w;; Swapson ex 7 rsr; '!- '1-0 ~ -~ cl.t:rfu- oq-.).q-oo ~ ~ ~ ~ / K~ -~ IU:P~ ;;Jboo-O~ CR _57) I I ~ -riutJ- d,i.,# 10 - 3-00 ~ ~, e~ ~ ~ k - ~ ~ -'Alt ~1--~ ( A @J I 0 l I\\ I I I I ( - h\\._~ Q -I~ ~ I 3 - if I I rJ.-.,J. Ca:~ c.~ 1q ') I .f\\ - ;.. United States District Court -----------=EA:..:..::.S.;::.;:TE=RN_ __ DtSTIUCT OF ARKANSAS I TTTT ,:- Rory --;:;D~[V~IS~I07-;\"N~-------- [T ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE IBJMBER: 4: 82CVOOl T\"\"'nfmL-\\S RAY 1-- 1-- Chriscophe-:- Eeller, et al. Sam Jones, et: al. Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\t'arcilyn Fane \\ :acf'\"\" 5 . . . . - - ~--~v wapson \\cx'Y7(p \\ \\ \\ \\ \\~ ~ Ofv-07-06 ~ ~ il\u0026gt;~1 ex 117 I I I I 1e~ /k ~:;;~-OI United States District Court -----= ______ E_AS_TE_R_N __ D1STR.ICT OF -~ARK.!~!\\N:7SA~S ______ _ - I TTTJ ,:- :gnrx DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCROOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'illvffiER: 4: 82CVOO! Ju!v\" 9, 2002 I \\ \\ ex 1ero I I ...-.... ......... Christopher Eeller, et al. I. t:\"a'fp1 yn F an_t I,__ Kathv s~apson I I I I (-;y...r,i,__,t ~ 09-3o-CO - ~ c=r-c..,, __ -/TJ ~ -ak h{Jz;,/.4- t..,\\ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \\ \\ I I I I \\ I ~ 1 - ~~ Ct4\u0026lt;M..e. - I ~v-Q_ e,o ~d-'7t j ~ ~ 68-04--Cfq ~ ~ rn~ I] United States District Court ~-------E_A_ST_ER_N ___ D1Sn.ICT OF --=::-::ARK.!::::!\\N:::-:S-;-A_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- pnry DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I. 'ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , rnfmL~S RAY I I ........, __ Christopher Eeller, et al. mtv\" 9, 2002 \\.t\"a'fl\u0026gt;1.yn Fant I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT LIST CASE NIBvIBER: 4: 82CVOQ. ~ I . I United States District Court ________ EA_ST_ER_N __ D!STRICT OF_~ARKAN==SA;.:;....S ______ _ - I TT.,..J\"\" :gnrK D[VISION ~ITTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NillvIBER: 4: 82CV0C 1:--THOK!\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i';;opher Heller, e't al. \\ 7a:j;nes, et: al. ex \u0026lt;lO / I I I -pG.A.k~..J ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I l ~, 7_;);).-:,btl~ 7-~-557'6 United States District Court ___. ,..___ _____EA _S_TE_RN __ DlSTRlCT OF --=-::-ARKAN~_;;,.;.SA~S _______ - I TTTJ, ROCK DIVISION CTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4: s2cvooc T\"\"'fiim-L'\\S RAY \\ 'chr':i';;opher Heller, et al. I ~-~nes, et al. J,....u .1. \" 'v\" 9, 2002 1--\"+ F 1--- 1.,ar.9.1.yn an~ Kathv \u0026lt;;wapson ex?; / 3 ~-1-0;).. J!.P.W f-lciB.,Zv().(.d' -~ =-t-14 -t-u~1 9~J~ooo (,--;;i ct- 01qq1,;1. -j-T) /-;).f-0111,;iq. I I J/.d-,0--0 ro ;1.1esc/~ ~ t -c) -DICfl :\u0026gt;.~ I -)f-ol C/ '1~) I I rf..R.. SJ) ~~\"--\" ~~\"'\u0026lt;..LO- t/-l';;l - !'119- 'd{JO() {1--~-K-o/CjCJQ;, ~ /~)(-cJ/19(:;q) 1 I I I I 1:- ~ \"'4'.P / '\\,U,VTI\\J/ ~t:\u0026lt;19 _ g 17 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ P~~vt- ~Cll.Ad 1 I I I . l ~-4 . iqqq(l-~-DI . United States District Court ~-------EA_ST_E_RN ___ DIS'TRICT OF _-::-:-:'-ARKAN~-:-:-SA_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- BOrK DIVISION LTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:s2cvoo1: J:-iHOI:La\\S RA.Y I ~i-;;opher Heller, et al. I ~-'j;nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 l.ra'fp1.yn Fant I w~ Swapsop United States District Court __________EA_ ST_E_RN_ __ DISTIUCT OF -~ARK.!~~~SA_S_ _______ - I TTTJ i:- BOrK DIVISION :TTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST JLASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJrvfBER: 4:82CV008 Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\ :C-a~'lyn Fan~ I w~ Swanson ex Mo I \\ex '6ltq \\ ~~ i;-D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I \\ \\ I I I I I I 11--R..SD ~Z\u0026gt; -ot ~~ ~ e (1-:).\u0026lt;;i\"'-oJo3~ --fo f-:\u0026gt;-f-6)031./7) l'J'l'L . :/S~ Ct -:\u0026gt;-i ..... Q d-0 iJL/::;;. 71\u0026gt; I- d-\u0026lt;t-Od-() c.;9) United States District Court __________EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTRlCT OF --=::=:ARKAN~~SA~S _______ - r TTT'J ,:- B/\"\\rT\u0026lt;\" D1VISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST lTLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'U1v1BER: 4: 82CV001: r:-'fRO!:-LA.S RAY I 'chr'i';;opher Heller, et al. I s:;j';;'nes, ec al. .ru!v' 9, 2002 l.'.Ca'fp1.y:n F~n.t I FsF Swanson ~ sr;;-\\ ~g, I ! ! I I Im vT ~..-. DI ( t -- -;;;.. f_ o){Jb{i. --/-\u0026lt;iJ /-\";;).f-c~O\u0026amp;:J/';;}. I 1, '\\ I~ ~ ~ P~ \\ c?.06 r - ').Do ::i. (r --;}. F '-0 ::i. o~ 'gC/7zJ I-';) ?-o~t) 77;) ex g Go I I . I 1~ ~ - ,~ ~o~ ex '6l, ( \\ ) \\ \\ \\ \\ ~ tJ HD -1 f ' b -~;;J- 6'/-3'{ -r,, 7~ ';,;;). _,;11d 1 \\ ( \\ \\ \\ \\ t\u0026lt;.. itL,tr ~ vth~::2. ( 1 cx ~ (,)- \\ . I ~J;;;ff:LI 1 g ..-- l-0, ~ (7- -;; - [;l/l/D lD 7 - ;;;-;;) - X q, 6 3 I . / I I I I ~ ' 7 ~If!!_ ( c).COC i~4 I \\ I I I 1~ ~7-~-m1/fe7-?2-w1J United States District Court --------E-ASTE-RN ---DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I TTII 't\" BOrK DIVISION [T~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al . CASE NUMJ3ER: 4: 82CVOOE .i-:-firo-t-Lt\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i;;opher Heller, et: al.. \\ ~~nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 luTI,1yn F.ant I wF Swapson I I I -I I I I I I .. - I I \\ I I I I I I I ex I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECEIVED - JUL 2 .. 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.fo lbf cPuRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 1 8 2002 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ----~D::-:E\"\"'P.\"\"\"c\"\"\"'Le=A-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. My May 15, 2002 Order read, in part, as follows: 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21 , 2002, will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 2. In a letter dated July 16, 2002, Mr. Walker enclosed seven proposed rebuttal exhibits. I will deal with them one by one. 3. CX 599 has been previously identified by Joshua and, absent a specific objection, will be admitted. 4. A Bonnie Lesley July 27, 2001 e-mail to Ms. Anne Brown (Marshall) was not - - - - - ----- - - - - -- - - - - - identified and marked prior to the June 21 deadline, and will be excluded. 5. A copy of the cover sheet for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which is entitled \"Report on the Little Rock School District's Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,\" dated August 11, 1999. I assume, but do not know, that Joshua plans to introduce the entire report, although nothing but the cover sheet was provided in the letter. In any event, it violates the deadline set forth above and will be excluded. 6. Ms. Bonnie Lesley's February 21, 2000 letter to Ms. Anne Brown regarding \"recent LRSD publications.\" It will be excluded for the same reason. 7. A letter dated April 13, 2000, from Ms. Anne S. Brown to Dr. Bonnie Lesley acknowledging receipt of Ms. Lesley's February 21 , 2000 letter and attachments. It will be excluded. 8. Ann Brown's April 25,200 memo to Bonnie Lesley regarding \"feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents.\" It will be excluded. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring's October 26, 1999 \"Achievement Disparity Between The Races In The Little Rock School District.\" This will be excluded. 10. In the last paragraph beginning on the first page of Mr. Heller's July 17 letter, he requests that Mr. Walker be required to identify, by page and line number, the testimony of Dr. Lesley, which renders the rebuttal testimony of Ms. Marshall and Mr. Jones necessary. This is a fair request, and I normally would require it if time were not so short. I do note that Mr. Walker has only thirty minutes, total, for rebuttal. 11 . In the first full paragraph of Mr. Heller's letter dated July 17, 2002, which begins, \"in its Motion in Limine ... \" LRSD objects to the reading into evidence portions of the -2- depositions of certain Board members. With the exception of Dr. Karen Mitchell's testimony at lines 13-23 on page 27, all of remaining designated deposition testimony relates exclusively to the issues of academic achievement and program evaluations which are not among the issues which will be addressed during the hearing beginning on July 22. The objection is sustained. 12. In view of the sustaining of the objection, in the next preceding paragraph, the remainder of Mr. Heller's letter is moot. IT IS so ORDERErH DATED this / B day of July, 2002. -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTf: ~UL7 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ' 7//9/tJ~ ~ 07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEJVED JUL 2 -2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILJ:D : U.S. DISTRl~COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 STATE OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEME----=..,,_.,.;._ oJiliP~ Deputy Attorney G\u0026lt;m~l Civil Department Direct dial: (BOI) 682,2586 Mark Pryor Attorney General R~~tr,s July 17, 2002 ... _,,~ The Honorable William R. Wilson . J. a~j (U?\"'w:U;_ ~1:~~ Jr. United States District Court ~nO ~~~ '(/ uE.t. ~~sx;~~~~g~e 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 11) : ~ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: oiC ~ \"f!:11-(0)- eneral, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, es ec y request that we be excus from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Distnct s otlon or m ary tatus set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. c=~~ DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. SamuelJones,III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q :\\Civi1\\DenniaHldeeeg\\2002\\Con-espondcnce\\judgeltt07-l 7 .doc JUL.19.2002 10:36AM Ja-!N W W~KER P A N0.732 P.2 na:\\;flVEu - JUL 2 2 2002 OFFIC~ OF n ,:.:( .l! '/1\"~\" \"\" I~IO NITORING JOffNW. WAt,Klm . SHAWN CH1LD8 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Jlldge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock. AR 12201 JoHNW. WALKER,P.A. u Ff LS::D .s. DISTR1\u0026lt;!'rcou M:TOBNXT kt LAW EASTERN DISTRICT RT 1723 B'RoADWAY ARKAN SAS Lrm\u0026amp;Rocx,ARKANSAB 72206 JUL 1 9 2002 TELEPS'ONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 814-4187 JA_M~~q5M , Sy, -,~~aw;..~,~C~LERK~ . T MOcHFECNORUYN PiE.AL. , _ DONNAJ. ~y VI.a Facsbnile: 604--5149 July 19, 2002 8210 HIMl'l!SON BoAD 14:rrt,\u0026amp; Roc:x. ~ 7l!l!l0 PROm: (501) 11n-3426 Fax (501) 372,M28 EliWl-~bell.net 7 l -- ct_..\u0026lt;!L ,. h , . ~))4 \"~ f l)f il)UI-~ ~ dra'I' ~lA lA'L ~ \u0026lt;J r ) i: CA V\\11 L _A _1t ,i.,VII\\ ~ ,-A,1/~p ))\\f I , ~,t.\u0026amp;_ ~;;-.;, ,, u9--1 ) _,d.Jfo/'f .A ~ !-+Iv'' \u0026gt;;f/i u C~----aJfl--\\ ~f~i,ll 1 ~l ..,_;;,a,Lv--' i),L{ . ~{' ~'':' 1:,,t--\u0026amp; 1#..\"' v-.\u0026lt;1-Y,~J:v ~1,\u0026lt;, I ,. -~--;\";j))}-tL ffed: ,e-. Y:,. i,..1L '10 1i '\\ tJ,'.Jl.-.- if J?,1 ,uA-a.t.--.;(,~{# ~ '?r.,,/,'P-\" v\" Ct ~ 1'.-c11~u~ Dear Judge Wilsoll! \\,Vw-,.-v' .,/4A, J;-{,t,Jul- \\,~A.A. ~t.U: ' IJ\"'\"t/' One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar~ Principal of Franklin ElementarY , pit.Q.,,( School has been subpoenaed for the 8,30. July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She ;,(c.' (J)l)-M has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education }- business at that time. She is scheduled to appear 8$ a witness on Wednesday. I see no probleui n~ L\\. in haVing hor appear on Wednesday other th8n your order. Toe District, l llll1 sure, will alao C'- \"')'. want her exoused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request tha1 she be allowed to ., v\" l..f report on Wedneoda}' momlng, July 24, 2002. ralh\u0026lt;:r than July 22. 2002. ~, \"\"'; Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. JWW:lp cc; Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr, Chris Heller Ms, Ethel Dun.bar 10/10 39'i1d 51,rs RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 19, 2002 BY FAX FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 2002 ~~~~ RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW / JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next week's evidentiary hearing in this case a t - your discretion. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. RECEIVED Fii ;:~ u ~--.. , EAsrMRsN ?;,ftt1ff co URT ' ARKANSAS f JUL 3 0 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . JUL 1 r 2~n2 l a_ OFFICEOF 90ESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTE~I;:~c6ii s~NS~:MES w. McCORMACK, CLERK 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 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEP CLE~K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order of July 18, 2002 which was faxed to us at the end of the business day, yesterday, July 18, 2002. On the day before, July 1 7, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a letter with the Comi by fax, also at the end of the business day, wherein counsel made several objections citing authority for one. The Joshua Intervenors were not afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the Court's Order. The Joshua Intervenors, therefore, object to the Court's entry of an Order on a disputed matter without their having been afforded a reasonable response time to the plaintiffs motion. We note that there are only 30 minutes of rebuttal testimony and evidence at issue here. Joshua notes that the positions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) have been considered vital in the previous deliberations during fact finding proceedings. In the past, the Court Itself has invited the ODM to state its findings on matters which it had monitored. That has been the established procedure in this case for its duration. Joshua counsel acknowledges that the transition from one judge to another will result in some changes in the administration of a case; but Joshua believes that it is fundamental that the role of the ODM be preserved not only in operation but in presentation of the facts which it learns during its monitoring. Joshua proceeds now to address the reasons for the motion herein. 1) Joshua communication with Ms. Ann Marshall before June 21 , 2002 and even since then has been difficult due to personal circumstances of Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall's personal situation constitutes \"highly unusual circumstances.\" 2) The Leslie e-mail of July 27, 2001 to Ms. Marshall is a document which the Distiict has had for some time. There is no unfair prejudice to the plaintiff for it to be used by Ms. Marshall during her testimony. We submit that the Court's ruling should be reconsidered because it simply identifies ODM documents. 3) The Court excludes the ODM \"Report on the Little Rock School Districts Preparation for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Report.\" We note that this report is already a pait of the Court's record. It was filed when it was prepared. Please note the file mark of August 1 1, 1999. The cover sheet was submitted simply for reference by Joshua because the Court already has the entire report. I presume, but apologize for presuming, that the Court was aware that this report was already a pait of the record. [See Par. 5, infra.] 4) The Bonnie Leslie letter of February 21 , 2000 has also been excluded by the Court. We object to the Court's ruling for the reason, supra. The District contends that ODM participated in the evaluations that it made. The letter of February 21, 2000 shows that Leslie invited \"feedback for improvement\" or questions regarding the certain curriculum documents rather than for \"evaluations.\" We request that we at least be allowed to proffer the document with a note that Ms. Marshall may surely testify about the contents therein. 5) The Court excluded the ODM Report of August 26, 1999. This, too, has been filed as a matter of record in this case since August 26, 1999. It is not a new exhibit. The Court has had this exhibit before it now for almost three years. I ask the Court to reconsider its exclusionary ruling because the effect of it is to remove an admitted document from the record. [Underlining added for emphasis.] 6) Finally, with respect to the identified testimony of school board members, the Court precludes all but the testimony of Dr. Mitchell at lines 13-27 on p. 27. We feel that the Court should reconsider this ruling because an issue of good faith is also raised with respect to the issues which were before the Court in the first proceeding. For example, Dr. Carnine testified regarding the subjects in issue. His credibility was a clear issue. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were asked questions regarding Dr. Carnine's truthfulness to them as board members. We are entitled to show that either they did not consider him credible or that they would falsify a response themselves rather than give a statement of their experiences with Carnine regarding Carnine's truthfulness. Carnine's truthfulness goes to the District's good faith and to the integrity of the evidence recited in the reports prepared under Carnine's supervision in March of 2000 and 2001. Also, please note, Judge Wilson, that the school board members depositions were taken after we had basically concluded our case on those issues before the Court. We could not have presented it during our case-in-chief because it was not then available. Furthermore, the depositions were before the Court as exhibits before the June 21, 2002 deadline for filing exhibits. The cited lines relate to the issue of good faith with respect to good faith, discipline, student achievement and program evaluations. In conclusion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order and to modify it accordingly. Joshua also requests that if the Court is inclined to make an instantaneous ruling on a motion by the District that the Cow1 afford Joshua reasonable time to respond before entering an Order. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 . r, AR Bar No. 64046 ' JOHNW. WALK.ER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Rickey Hicks, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoin/ ~.ha been \"},:,lf and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this day of I , 2002: I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis R. Hansen FRlDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones \\\\TRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 rvir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 JUL 2 2 2002 A OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * .I)ISTRICTNO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER u.fo1{fm~cRRr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 :e 2002 i;,~~-1-r I have reviewed Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the July 18, 2002 order excluding - certain documents Joshua recently identified as exhibits for use with their rebuttal witnesses. First, Joshua points out that the Court entered its order without allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond to LRSD's letter requesting the exclusion of those exhibits. While the Court normally allows opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to an issue before ruling, in this case Joshua had clearly violated the Court's May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order that explicitly required Joshua to identify all exhibits they intended to use during the July 22, 2002 hearing -- on or before June 21 , 2002. In light of that undisputed fact, which was the basis for my exclusion of those proposed exhibits, I saw ( and see) no reason for allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond. Second, Joshua points out that a number of the documents have previously been filed in the record. I was fully aware of that fact at the time I entered my order. However, merely because a - --- - - - - - ---- - ---- document has been filed in the record does not excuse Joshua from complying with the May 15 Scheduling Order. It explicitly required them to pre-mark and exchange with opposing counselall exhibits that it intended to use during the July 22 hearing. Under Joshua's interpretation of the May 15 Scheduling Order, they would be permitted to use, as rebuttal exhibits, any of the thousands upon thousands of documents that have been filed in this case during the last two or three years without identifying and exchange those documents with opposing counsel (marked as exhibits) -- as required by this order. Finally, in connection with the excluded deposition testimony, Joshua has construed the remaining issue of \"good faith\" in far too broad a context. The only good faith issue that remains to be tried in this case is LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, and guidance counseling. To the extent that Joshua desired to use this deposition testimony, which was known to them before the conclusion of the November 19, 2001 hearing, Joshua should have submitted that testimony as part of its case in chief. Since the trial date is upon us, if either side files a motion, at this late hour, an instantaneous ruling is likely if the motion or request is patently meritorious, as it was in this case. For both parties: The chute is about to open -- get your best hold. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o';~9J~J.~; ~~~,o:~ 2 U/f!i;{ [~ U. S. DISTRICT JU~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRA TE JUDGE J 600 WEST CAPITOL R THOMAS RAY , OOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 2 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FROM: \\,..I ~ ,_r\\ - ~ '\\! N't\\ . \\'\\. ~ ' :s Q(\\ FAX No: ~7 4 - L\\ \\ 'o7 / \"3 7lo-2\\47 DA7E: ~ \"'-\\Q 2\\/ 200 2 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: ~ ~\\~ '2..2. \\\\~r\\\"A \\..~bb \"' ~ '-s s.:h No. Ac. ezcv O0 7 _ 2. 7 - D L-- J s,~ PAGES: {ji_JJ,/\\. ~~: } ~vn1.12 J N-'/;\" ~ ,zf:;u- lf!J,V; O-A,J) ~I\\ 1), ~ /_,M-.(,;_p f-t\u0026amp;.w-J!{ 1M.e_ u,_/,,c6i (\\_ ~~ i~!J)_ 1 ~ ,vy\u0026amp;,.~r (a~ tt%/J ,~A.Vi.,i,\"-'i.t..J J,f.#.,T waf k lJ.bl} tf--l-L/v4J / ,u. ' ~ 1 ,y-JrJ-i {}/wv1.-' 06V1.,l7f-fQ1::;1 . ri 1~. ~ l\u0026lt;.c ~i!l l,vll~ X C : \\../.C1' / ~ 4--(/--r,~ f\u0026lt;-J-,t 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE RECEIVED FROM: 'N~-\"- 'v-J :\\s ~ JUL 2 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING -FAX ;:.o, 0\\ 4- 4\\~7 / ~llo-Z I '\\7 RE: ~ ::--~ - ?~;- F\"!L %fR1 g,srR,~ D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~T ,srR,cr ~/!:J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~. JUL 2 3 2i sAs WESTERN DIVISION s;MEs w M 'OJ2 ccoRMAc K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL V. LR-C-82-866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING AS REVISED JULY 23, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22, 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimony: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American emollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study conducted by Page 1 of 7 a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by African-American students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of AfricanAmerican students who did not participate; discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK- 12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001 - the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer other testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 2 of 7 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, IBA, IBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl , JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan 2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of AfricanAmerican students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-2000 school year; that a 1999- 2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African- - American teachers thought that activities were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, IBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with Page 3 of 7 their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarship opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a - good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11 and 2.11. 1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the District. Ms. Page 4 of 7 Mitchell may offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 5. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses, that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua Jntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors appeared on July 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect Page 5 of 7 that Joy Springer appeared on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua Intervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan 8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement - courses; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Respectfully 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_30","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-06/2002-08"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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/30"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["130 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~f~ Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based on the.information .. avajiable atjv1ay :~j{ 2092\n.J6$ AD~(:Mculaled the Equalization Funding for F'(.01102, iUbje~(J8j5'erfodicadjdsfn:ignts'. . 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 June 28, 2002 ~:, l~\\~Sies~~{ii'~~~i\nr~i\n~::i~rei~i!~:~ay3T:'2602t}He:'AQ!\n:'~!9I\nJ~t!Jc1:[:E C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 ~\n:\n~~wi~:: 2602:' distribGtioHs cS(siateEqlialiZa\"Ho\"ii E:~naihg'fBnEX'EiJJq:'{w\n'r~ rnsb~i41,262,49o NLRSr3 [ $25,470,415 i=icssd! $4.9, 138,06s 1ne allotrr,ents of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY rij'102 at M'ay 3f: 2002\"\nsubject to peri6'dic adjustments, were as follows: LRSb f $5.1,583,043 NLRS[fl $27,862,936 PCSSD .~ $53,735,000 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based On ttie information available, the ADE calcufated at May 31, 2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 tt~'!~~\n:sfiJ6,~\n:)fa!:ri.r(~Il~'~y.i\\_~}i,~'.!!fa~,At\u0026gt; E:caiciate'cJ., at r0..aY 31'{2002:Jo.FE,X QJl92\u0026amp;~Q.bjec,('Jq ' p~rii:id.i\nadjU$.tr.i\\~riW It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 a'\ntmBh'ffi'\u0026amp;Jhforitikticin avairahle,'thEi\nADE caicuiated at May 31 '. i662foFFY Q]/02, tCibjectfo periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distributions for FY 01102 at May 31, 2002, totaled $10,181,885. Aliotment 2ai_culatedfor FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments'. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks . (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 r 'd6~:~J!e:fIDt.:i211I'.:!'.[~jcGiate'd f6r FY.01/02 afMay.31, 2662, sub}ect io 'r5eri~dlc a 1ustmen s\n,:,w~re: P3Q.A::\n~,Jzi1?? .. NLRSDf '.$2\n046,540 PCSSD_TsI(()s3\n41a ., ..... . J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) K The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In September 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In March 2002, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 01 /02 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 31 , 2002, the following had been paid for FY 01 /02 LRSD - $2 ,312,194.00 NLRSD - $423,333.34 PCSSD - $944,264.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97 . In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2 ,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235 The buses were distributed accordingly LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 -1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92 ,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed , b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SA T-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 18 e IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 1 9 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the N LRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education 25 V COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0 Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AOE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Or. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process . The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied . The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized . On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and.approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. oR:Oulielmr~JRi2.ftB\n::e.rRansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the i5MTand lts e{~tuH9e sGmmar/ior.the rTiqrlth of May. 3 2 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed , and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance . Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans , Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representati ves in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assi stance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan in service training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000 Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training , Dr. Reynolds addressed the following 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (ie , parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend . On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented . Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, PE Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal , a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended . On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9,2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurjg , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres , Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session . The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions) . LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting . On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting . On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9 30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan . The principal's role in the process was explained . The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan . The principal's role in the process was explained. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) ii if l!f !if f:f fr t~~tri:~Jf.~~ ::i\n:~~x thlproficiehnevei 6noheotmore partsof the most recent Benchmark Ei1miriatfofr:\"UfHg '~genda _included presentations On ''The Plan-Do-Check-Act IQ 0 Stfudiof1~1 cY.~igj '.~y'foe.:.d.~tionally known spec1kerPat Davenport. ADE p\\(ffionnei'. provlde'cf '.$ff~xpianation of the MPH point program. Presentations weFe made by'{iali,\"'and uferacy Specialists: Dr, Charity Smith, Assistant oir~cior rdt /42t8tNhabiltty, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out se's'sfons w'ereheid, Tnwhich s'chool districts with h1gh scores on the MPH poiri(program ofr~fed strategies and insights into increasing student iichievement. .The .NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. 51 VIL TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SA T-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SA T-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation , and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 53 VII . TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 54 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII. D. of this report. 8. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as oJ June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as wel l as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan , staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff,. stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Dire\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1736","title":"District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-08"],"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 School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School enrollment","School districts","Student activities","Students","Parents","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1736"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\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\u003eDistrict Court, five orders; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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 u.foilfm~cPuRT -\"'EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAY 0 7 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff;-- vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER ~~M~~ No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED MAY -8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua lntervenors have moved for a second extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For cause, Joshua Intervenors state that they are in settlement talks with LRSD on the issue ofLRSD's unitary status, and that \"additional time is needed to continue these discussions.\" Although Joshua's counsel has asked to extend the response time until May 20, 2002, I take judicial notice of the fact that he is a candidate for the Arkansas Senate; and the primary election is on Tuesday, May 21 , 2002. Accordingly, I am granting Joshua Intervenors an extension until and including May 30, 2002. I do note that the chances of another extension are remote, at best. DATED this ( tff day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE w~/iULE ss ANotoR~7F9R CP ON ~(}y BY ~ ~ 1 7 595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN D1STRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. l , et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , lntervenors, 4:82cv00866 RECEIVED MAY - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG ORDER The parties are notified that Judge J. Thomas Ray is the U. S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Dated this 6th day of May, 2002 . . /11:L ' ------ JY ry{, ~ . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ~CP ON -0.-1 f?\"\"r: BY , c.,,,,,. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 596 A072A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT CO_B~J~Jk1 ~1?ouRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ER~l DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAY 9 2082 LITTLE ROCKS,CHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VY. IVIT\\L~n 1V1ALK., CLE.RK. B . \\J y .:OT A ~ --- y. - - Ut:t''.Ct:tKK V. No. 4-:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On January 3, 2002, I was assigned this twenty-year-old action, which over the years has come to be known in this District simply as \"the school case\" (docket entry #3570). Pleadings in the case now occupy hundreds of feet of files in the District Court Clerk's office, and the magnitude of the appeals in the case has led the Eighth Circuit to adopt a policy of rotating the case to a new appeal panel every five years. Thus, by necessity, the decisions I make will be built on the footings and foundations poured by other District Court and Appellate Court Judges--their decisions have shaped the current contours of the case. On March 15, 2001, approximately nine months before I inherited this case, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a pleading which could result in a watershed ruling--a Request for Scheduling Order and attached Compliance Report ( docket entry #3410) aimed at obtaining \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" Id. Subsequently, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed an Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3447) in which they challenge the LRSD's contention that it is entitled to A072A a judicial declaration that it has achieved overall unitary status. On January 25, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry#357 l) referring the issue of unitary status to a mediator. In doing so, it was my understanding that the LRSD and Joshua both had requested mediation as a means of promptly, efficiently, and finally resolving that issue. Over ninety days have now elapsed, with no report that progress has been made through mediation. I was somewhat sanguine, but the lapse of time with no report of progress has dampened my optimism. 1 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after filing its Compliance Report, the LRSD filed a Motion for an lrnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket entry #3580) and supporting Memorandum Brief (docket entry #3581). On May 6, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry #3595) granting Joshua's request for an extension of time and allowing them until and including May 30, 2002, to file their Response. The recent actions of the parties, in placing the issue of unitary status back before me, appears to be a clear signal that mediation is not succeeding and that settlement negotiations have stalled. Therefore, the Court intends to decide, soon, the issue of unitary status raised in the LRSD's March 15 Motion. Inheriting the case at this point (I hope its shadow is falling far to the east) has required me to review an enormous amount of material just to try to determine where we are.2 Although 1On April 18, 2002, Joshua filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #3592) that alludes to the parties having engaged in \"settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status.\" I have heard nothing further from the parties regarding these settlement discussions. It is most unlikely that any future requests for extensions will be granted because of \"settlement discussions.\" 2The fields of education and \"school litigation\" also have a jargon of their own which a neophyte must attempt to absorb. -2- A072A IRP.vR/~ it may be old hat to the parties, I believe it will be helpful for me to set out in some detail where I find we are and, just as importantly, where I intend to go. I. Where I Find We Are On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the LRSD's January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). On April 10, 1998, the Court entered an Order ( docket entry #3144) approving the Revised Plan. Section 11 of the Revised Plan specifically describes the procedure the LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status At the conclusion of the 2000-0 I school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 , indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. On March 15, 200 l , the LRSD filed the required \"Compliance Report\" ( docket entry #3410),3 which describes section by section the LRSD's alleged \"substantial compliance'\"' with each provision of the Revised Plan. The Court entered an Order (docket entry #3414) establishing May 18, 2001, as the 3 Although not required by the Revised Plan, on March 15, 2000, the LRSD filed an Interim Compliance Report (docket entry #3356). 4 The Revised Plan does not define what \"substantial compliance\" means, but, as Professor McCormick teaches us, it takes \"a skillful definer to make it plainer by multiplication of words the explanations themselves often need more explanation than the term explained . .. . \" 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 341, p. 430 (5th ed. 1999). -3- A07?A --- deadline for challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report. Subsequently, Joshua moved three times for extensions of that deadline ( docket entries #3415, #3429, and #3443). Finally, the Court entered an Order (docket entry#3445) establishing June 25, 2001, as the final deadline for Joshua to file their Response to the LRSD's Compliance Report.5 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to the LRSD 's Compliance Report ( docket entry #3447). In this Opposition, Joshua argues that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with various specifically enumerated sections of the Compliance Report and describes the nature of the LRSD's noncompliance under each of those sections. Importantly, Section 11 of the Revised Plan explicitly provides that the \"challenging party'' has the burden of proving that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Counsel for Joshua has acknowledged on the record that the Court has \"given us and by agreement we accept the burden of proof' ( docket entry #3464, transcript of July 9, 2001 scheduling conference, p. 26, lines 14-17).6 Almost immediately after Joshua filed their Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report, the Court began a series of telephone conferences with counsel (docket entries #3348 and #3349) to establish a schedule for conducting evidentiary hearings on Joshua's challenges to the Compliance Report. During the June 29, 2001 telephone conference, the Court set aside July 5 5During a telephone conference on June 29, 2001, the Court described in some detail the circumstances surrounding the three extensions of this filing deadline ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, pp. 24-25). 61ndependent of this judicial admission, the Court specifically ruled that, under the plain language of Section 11 of the Revised Plan, it was agreed that any party, such as Joshua, who challenges the LRSD' s compliance will bear the burden of proof ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, p. 26, lines 11 -21). -4- A072A (Rev.8/82) and 6 and August 1 and 2 to hear evidence from Joshua regarding its challenges to the LRSD's \"substantial compliance\" with the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3461 at p. 25, lines 22-25, and p. 26, lines 1-9). The Court also made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence ( docket entry #3461, pp. 54-55). Because Joshua has the burden of proof, the Court allowed them to put on their case first. On July 5 and 6, 2001 , Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services (docket entry #3462, transcript of July 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing and docket entry #3463, transcript ofJuly 6, 2001 evidentiaryhearing at pp. 274-340) and Dr. Les Carnine, the former Superintendent of the LRSD (docket entry #3463, transcript of July 6, 2001 evidentiary hearing). During his cross-examination7 of these two witnesses, counsel for Joshua sought to elicit testimony proving that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with three specific obligations under the Revised Plan: (1) \"Good faith\" implementation of the policies, programs, and procedures described in the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1. l ); (2) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3-5.3.5, 5.4, 5.6.1, and 2.7.1); and (3) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures regarding various aspects of student discipline (sections 2.5 and 2.5.1- 2.5.4). After taking the first two days of testimony, the Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 7This technically was \"direct examination,\" but since the witnesses were associated with an adverse party, it was, in effect, cross-examination. -5- AO 72A 200 I, to schedule the remaining days necessary to complete the evidentiary hearing on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3464, transcript of scheduling conference held on July 9, 2001). Counsel for Joshua, in response to questions from the Court, stated that he believed the LRSD 's three most serious areas of non-compliance under the Revised Plan were failing to remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; continuing a policy of disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions; and failing, in good faith, to properly implement the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 26- 29). With the agreement of counsel, the Court set aside August 1 and 2 and November 19 and 20 to complete the evidentiary record on these three discrete issues ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 45- 46, 51-52, and 60-61 ). In formulating this schedule, the Court indicated that it would hear six hours of testimony on August 1, November 19, and November 20, and three hours of testimony on August 2. The Court ruled that these twenty-one hours of anticipated testimony would be divided equally between Joshua and the LRSD, so that each side would be allowed ten and onehalf hours to put on their respective cases on the issues of good faith, student achievement, and student discipline (docket entry #3464 at pp. 62-64). Finally, at the close of the July 9 scheduling conference, the Court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel, that makes it clear everyone knew and understood the three issues that would be tried to conclusion during the hearings on August 1-2 and November 19-20: MR. HELLER: But I just want to be sure we have heard Mr. Walker's case before we present ours. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. In other words, and these will be discrete issues, and I say they are discrete. Discipline and achievement, and I agree that there is some linkage there between the two. But those things, achievement particularly, is what is bothering me. -6- A072A (Acn,A / R'J\\ And discipline, maybe Mr. Walker can make me think that discipline ought to be bothering me too, and I guess it is to an extent because of the way the District has presented it. But still, there is some improvement there. MR.WALKER: Here is the other thing. Throughout this whole thing, the concept of good faith is present, and I don't th.ink we are going to have separate sections where we present good faith evidence. Part of what would be presented, as we are presented with Dr. Carnine and Mr. Babbs, is evidence to show that they had no intention of doing what they said they were going to do, and they really did not do it. So, that will be addressing good faith. THE COURT: Well, of course, you are free to do that. I have personally observed that Little Rock, I think, has been much, much better in recent years than it was when I first got the case .... (Docket entry #3464, p. 65, lines 16-25, and p. 66, lines 1-23.) In the August 1, 2001 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua called and examined Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of the LRSD, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction ( docket entry #3493). At the beginning of the August 2 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua re-examined Dr. Mitchell, and called and examined Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent responsible for handling discipline in alternative education settings, and James Washington, the ombudsperson for the LRSD ( docket entry #3494). During his examination of these four witnesses, counsel for Joshua again sought to elicit testimony regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations related to good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; and to eliminate the disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions. At the conclusion of the August 2 hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had -7- AO 72A used eight of his allotted ten and one-half hours ohime. The Court made it clear that counsel for Joshua could elect to rest his case and use the remaining two and one-half hours to cross-examine witnesses called by the LRSD or he could forego cross-examination and continue to call witnesses. Joshua's counsel indicated that, after he called a few \"brief' witnesses at the beginning of the November 19 hearing, he intended to rest his case and reserve his remaining time for cross-examination (docket entry #3494, pp. 950-954). At the beginning of the November 19 evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had decided to rest his case on the issues of the LRSD's good faith compliance with implementation of the Revised Plan, the implementation of programs and policies designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, and student discipline (docket entry #3558 at pp. 14-15). After the Court denied its Motion for Directed Verdict on those issues, the LRSD proceeded to call three witnesses: James Washington, Dr. Linda Watson, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their respective direct and crossexaminations of Mr. Washington and Dr. Watson on November 19. However, counsel for the LRSD was not able to complete his direct examination of Dr. Lesley (docket entry #3558). On November 20, counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their direct and crossexaminations of Dr. Lesley. After counsel for Joshua concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Lesley, he sought to call several \"rebuttal witnesses\" in what he estimated to be his remaining \"25 or so minutes\" of the original ten and one-half hours of time (docket entry #3559, p. 573). Counsel for the LRSD objected and suggested that \"the time left for Mr. Walker is just about zero\" (docket entry #3559, p. 573). -8- A072A The Court resolved this dispute by making the following unequivocal ruling: THE COURT: But I will tell you what I will do, I will give you [Mr. Walker] twenty-five more minutes. Now that's it. (Docket entry #3559 at p. 575, lines 21-23; emphasis added.) Although counsel for Joshua urged the Court to \"keep an open mind on aJ~owing Joshua more time,\" the Court refused to reconsider its ruling. The Court also made it clear that, if counsel for Joshua intended to call members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") as rebuttal witnesses, their testimony would count against his remaining twenty-five minutes of time (docket entry #3559 at p. 583, lines 9- 12). Thus, at the conclusion of the November20 evidentiary hearing, six days of testimony and hundreds of exhibits had been introduced in connection with what Joshua identified as their three strongest arguments against declaring the LRSD unitary: ( 1) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the \"good faith\" obligations contained in the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; and (3) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Furthermore, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD had both rested their cases on these three issues, and all that remained was for Joshua's counsel to use his remaining \"twenty-five minutes\" to call rebuttal witnesses.8 On December 11, 2001, the Court conducted a scheduling hearing to discuss issues and 8Counsel for Joshua indicated that these rebuttal witnesses might include the staff of ODM, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Roberts. -9- AO 7'?A witnesses that would be presented during a five-day evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28 (docket entry #3597). At the beginning of the hearing, the Court noted that Joshua had twenty-five minutes of\"true rebuttal\" testimony that remained to be heard on the three discrete issues which had been tried to conclusion during the six previous days of hearings (docket entry #3597 at p. 5). The Court requested that counsel for Joshua identify the issues and witnesses he intended to cover during the upcoming five-day evidentiary hearing. Counsel for Joshua identified the following areas of the Revised Plan which he intended to attack to prove the LRSD was not in substantial compliance: ( 1) extracurricular activities; (2) advanced placement courses; (3) guidance and counseling; (4) the student assignment plan; (5) no middle school evaluation; (6) the Cook School closing; (7) housing desegregation; (8) interdistrict schools and monitoring student recruitment; (9) staffing and funding incentive schools; (10) alternative education; (11) compliance standards; ( 12) desegregation plan modification; and ( 13) the academic achievement gap ( docket entry #3597 at pp. 6-19). Counsel for Joshua estimated it would take three full weeks to put on his case regarding these issues ( docket entry #3597 at p. 19). LRSD's counsel strenuously objected to Joshua expanding their attack on the LRSD's substantial compliance to include essentially every section of the Revised Plan. First, counsel noted that: (a) section 8.2 of the Revised Plan sets forth a detailed procedure for raising compliance issues; and (b) Joshua had failed to utilize that procedure to raise any of the foregoing compliance issues before filing their June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. Similarly, counsel noted that Joshua had never raised any objection to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 (docket entry #3597 at pp. 21-23). -10- AO 72A /Rev.8/82\\ Second, counsel noted that Joshua was now raising challenges to the LRSD's substantial compliance with sections 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.3--provisions of the Revised Plan that were not challenged in Joshua's June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3597 at p. 23). Finally, counsel stated his much different understanding of the purpose for the December 11 scheduling hearing: I thought the purpose of what we were going to do today was to narrow the issues; get this down to some very specific issues, talk about what specific evidence was going to be needed to litigate those issues, and then set some very limited time frames to get the case on a track where the Court and the parties can fulfill their responsibility to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. (Docket entry #3597 at p. 24). In resolving this contentious dispute between counsel regarding the scope of the issues that remained on the question of unitary status, the Court first noted that counsel for Joshua had already presented his strongest evidence on student achievement and student discipline, the \"areas of [the LRSD's] compliance [with the Revised Plan] that he [counsel for Joshua] thought were weakest.\" Next, the Court identified four remaining issues related to unitary status that Joshua would be allowed to cover during the hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) guidance counseling; (3) extracurricular activities; and ( 4) the LRSD's overall obligation of good faith under the Revised Plan (docket entry #3598 at pp. 31- 32).9 The Court went on to explicitly describe how it intended to conduct the final five days of 9The Court concluded that advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities were issues closely related to the issue of improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, the Court indicated that Joshua would be allowed to present evidence on student achievement but only for the limited purpose of explaining how the LRSD's policies, programs, and procedures regarding advanced placement courses, -11- AO 72A ,n .... . . n ,n,..,\\ evidentiary hearings: THE COURT: But this is what I would like to do. Instead of giving you three weeks, I would like to, which I don't have, by the way, what I would like to do is give careful attention to achievement, guidance and counseling, and related matters such as advanced placement and extracurricular the week ofJanuary 28th . Again, I think good faith is always an issue and you can always bring that up. But I would like to confine vour focus to those matters and then, I would like to make a ruling, I would like to have everything on those matters submitted to the Court, so that I can make a ruling with respect to them. And if necessary, give the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to give us further guidance. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would just prefer that. And I think that that would be something the District would like. It might bring this matter to closure more quickly, one way or the other. (Docket entry #3597 at pp. 36-37; emphasis added). II. Where We Go From Here Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD 's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 1 For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. This means I must now address only two issues still hanging fire. guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. 'From my review of the transcripts, I hardly see why it should take five days for the additional evidence (two days would seem to be time aplenty), but Judge Wright has dealt with this case for a long time, and I will defer to her call. -12- A072A /Oou 0 / Ct ? \\ First, at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001 hearing, Judge Wright allowed Joshua twenty-five minutes to put on \"true rebuttal\" testimony relevant to three discrete issues: ( 1) the LRSD's good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to insure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Having never been one to place too fine a point on time-keeping, I will allow Joshua thirty full minutes to present \"true rebuttal\" testimony directed at these three precise issues. After this brief rebuttal testimony has been received, the record will be closed on the issue of the LRSD's substantial compliance with those sections of the Revised Plan related to the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 3.4, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.2. 1, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2, 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3, 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3, 5.3.1-5 .3.5, 5.4, and 5.6.1) and student discipline (sections 2.5, 2.5 .1-2.5.4). As early as practical in June, I intend to schedule a short evidentiary hearing to allow counsel for Joshua to present this \"true rebuttal\" testimony. I would also welcome a stipulation or other arrangement that would allow this extremely brief and limited rebuttal evidence to go into the record, without the need for a formal hearing. Second, I need to establish the basic ground rules for the final evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the LRSD has achieved unitary status. Before beginning the six days of evidentiary hearings last year on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's request for unitary status, Joshua's counsel agreed to arrange his evidence so that he presented his strongest arguments against unitary status first. Thus, I must conclude that the record now contains all of Joshua's strongest evidence ofLRSD's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations under -13- I I AO 72A /Rev.A/A?\\ the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1.1). Nevertheless, consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the Court will allow Joshua to present additional evidence of the LRSD 's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directlv to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith. Similarly, in putting on evidence regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities, counsel for Joshua may present evidence regarding how those issues adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. However, the Court will not allow counsel for Joshua to introduce any new or cumulative evidence on the issue of academic achievement, a subject that has already been thoroughly and extensively covered by Joshua's presentation of their strongest evidence during last year's six days of evidentiary hearings. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order within ten days setting aside up to five days (probably in June and/or July) to conclude the evidentiary record on the remaining factual issues relevant to the question of whether the LRSD is entitled to a declaration ofunitary status. Prior to entering that Order, the Court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to set the dates during which this evidentiary hearing will take place. \u0026lt;)Tn DATED this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,_, _\"TH RULE 58 ANO/OR~ fR_;: () ~o/10/0 a-~ Gj1 ~ UNITEb ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al MAY 2 0 2002 KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER u.frJJR1~PuRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This is to confirm a telephone conference will be held today, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to carefully review the Court's Order of May 9, 2002 before the telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2002. .u J d,. ln\\n ,-~:1~,-f-.( UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE ord.LRSD 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL '' DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT c- 1\\STER!~\\ CJiST9'CT ADV ~r--1c; Ac; ,M~Y 1 5 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2002 Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~l\\Ott MOttllORlltG Yesterday, on May 14, 2002, an on-the-record telephone conference was held with the lawyers for all the parties. During the telephone conference the following schedule was adopted: l. A final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School District's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status was set to commence on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; and to conclude on Friday, July 26 at 5:30 p.m . The time will be divided as follows: a. At 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 22 the Joshua intervenors will be given 30 minutes within which to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright; b. -2- The remaining forty hours of trial time will be divided equally (twenty hours and twenty hours) between the Joshua intervenors and the Little Rock School District. The Joshua intervenors must notify the Court, on or before July 9, 2002 of the amount of time, out of their twenty hours, that they wish to reserve to present rebuttal evidence. 2. I expect to take testimony from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 22 (with an hour for lunch); and from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. on each of the following four days (with an hour for lunch each day). 3. On or before June 21, 2002 the parties are directed to identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included, of each witness 's anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address. 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre - marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances . S. U. S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray will conduct a hearing commencing at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 2002. At that hearing, all exhibits will be presented, and pre-marked references will be two-blocked ; the witness lists and accompanying witness statements mentioned above will be submitted ; and evidentiary objections and motions in Ii mine will be submitted (it is likely that -3- 1 will later rule on most of the evidentiary objections and motions in limine, - although Judge Ray may issue some rulings during his hearing). 4. By 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, August 19, 2002 the parties must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Little Rock School Districts Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status. 5. It is re-emphasized that the parties will be required to present evidence within the limits set in my order of Thursday, May 9. 6. Counsel are instructed to interview and prepare witnesses for rifle - shot presentations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12.~ay of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITI-J?.llj-E 58 AND/~~)~ FRCP ON 1/J\"-/-Dr'sy_.~~--- RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 May 21, 2002 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Dennis Hansen Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: DennisH@ag.state.ar.us Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy a Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-styled case, which I am filing with the Court today. Very truly yours, 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Cover Letter May 21, 2002 DRH/dpn Enclosure cc: Ray Simon Scott Smith Q:\\Civil\\MarkH\\Open Files\\deseg\\2002\\ c orrespondence ~ ~ Ll~~~iJ R Hansen DAessnimstsa nt A ttome y General \\ltr cover 5-2 I -02drh.doc IN THE UNITED ST A TES 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 RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF lltS6RE6AT!ON MOillTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to state for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel the following: 1. Mark A. Hagemeier recently resigned from his position with the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General will be representing the defendant, ADE in this matter. 3. All correspondence and filings should be forwarded to the attention of Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock AR, 72201. Wherefore, the defense respectfully requests that Dennis R. Hansen be substituted as the attorney ofrecord for defendant ADE Respectfully submitted, MARK PRYOR, Attorney General By ~ L(-i44t. Dennis R. Hansen #97225 Deputy Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prien Tower 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-1315 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, do hereby certify that I have served the foreg~ument by mailing a copy of same by US. Mail, postage prepaid, thisj}s+ day of , 2002, to the following: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen AO 72A (Rev.8/82) FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUiPf\"i D!Srn:c--T \\CH' '~IC: l'I C: FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS M1\\Y 2 8 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. 8y: _________ _ DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Pending before the Court is Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602). In that Motion, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education asks that Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen be substituted for Mark A. Hagemeier as its counsel of record in this matter because Mr. Hagemeier no longer works for the Attorney General 's Office. The Court finds good cause for granting the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to substituted Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen as the attorney of record for Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Dated this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE .. :, c-1 ,~d e.!.: 53 t/:l.:,/OP~7~(~)i,:RCP 5'/17/01/ -- ---~ ---- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f\u0026lt;,'.':' ? t 11- ? EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS1~ t.LL,. WESTERN DIVISION By:MES W. McCORMACI(, CLER/( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED MAY 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DE;-:, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \" [ LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for a three-year term assuming substantial and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] 1 The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year [to] 1 .E....,__g_,_, Sturgis v. Skosos, 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 be a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 2 The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at--) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at--). On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an \"[O]pposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report.\" The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e., on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2 .1 ( general requirement of good faith compliance); achievement) ; 2.5-2.5.4 ( student discipline); 2.7.1 (program evaluation) ; 3 2.7 2.12.2 (academic (general 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment, the terms assessment and evaluation are, at times, used interchangeably. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation, until, in 2 requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate .. ); 6.0 to 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a. ); Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Carnine); Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion, this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore, do not respond to LRSD' s argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [ LRSD Mem. - the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See,~, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 223 ( \"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3 Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement ( at 37-40), and Program Evaluation ( at 40-46) . An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of a concept of \"substantial compliance. 11 Intervenors' fact.ual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix.' Summary of the Evidence I. Student Discipline A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and \\ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to school discipline. 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set Intervenors dispute, in the argument, LRSD' s repetitive suggestion [....,Jl_,_, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 4 forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2. 5. 2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; .. 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriata disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of indi victuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 5 6. 7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 2000) ( 2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discriminatibn and policies on discipline records); revision of student handbooks; creation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building ... \"; staff development; a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD; the sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools; and expansion of the number of alternative learning sites. [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities; directing principals to comply with the handbook; informing students and parents of standards; and employing the ombudsman. [at 15] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards; in-service training; and implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson). [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6 addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan); establishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and ... work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"; increasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work. [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such- plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the \"Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is as follows: Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. [at 16] (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6. 0 through 6. 7 ( general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline. [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on school discipline, at pages 24-26. 7 (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students; the decrease in the number of students committing offenses; the sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"). [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of - general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [ at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman; steps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services; and a description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8 services related to over 450 incidents. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved. [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2 .12. 2 ( investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in ... discipline (Section 2.5) ... 165] 5 \" [at (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above). [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan.\" It added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with [the] Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9 D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14; March 2001, at 24; Tr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21; at 55, 22 to 56, 15; at 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in ex 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer, 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more, 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). Suspension Index by Year\")] [CX 743 (\"Discipline ( 9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24); Watson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 14- 21; at 113, 14 to 114, 1; ex 743] 7 (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [ at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr., 11-19-01, 'at 25, 16-19] 7 On June 14, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. It sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the number of students subjected to one or more suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of overrepresentation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. 10 reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell); Tr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14; at 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson); ex 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\"); see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [g__,__g_,_, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15; March 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals, . whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16; 128, 6-18; 149, 10 to 150, 25; 155, 7-12; 161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data, Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11 A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up of teachers, administrators, support staff, that are helping to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] ( 16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \" [has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in d~scipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had \"prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"Not to my - knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8; see also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, because apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12 (18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to -- and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, 16-25; emphasis added] (19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. 8 The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. 13 A. Because I took -- once the report came out. we discussed it in the cabinet. and it was the decision at that time that we would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them, didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, we were not going to address the issues. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25; emphasis added] ( 20.) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had -- you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools, Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14 Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree . [Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] ( 21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be e xpected to accomplish . The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114 , 4 to 119, 8; see also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)] . E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan ( 2 2 . ) Section 2. 5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the requisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement [ ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [.E....,__g__._, Tr., 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6 . 1, 6.2, 6. 3 , 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline . Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the requirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2. 5. 3, and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming t hat LRSD substantially 15 complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [ at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr . Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [ CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000dd( 4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance) . . Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] 9 (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [ ex 672-76; Tr., 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with 9 LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16 regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline; the system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6 , 13 . The LRSD did not implement any programs , policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools or personnel. See paras. 12-18. (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [ Section 2. 5. 4 J , and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20; compare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter; and, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, 16-19], and the system's major witness on the topic, testified: \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSO Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline, is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. \" [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following. [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Or. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time ... we would not respond or do anything\"; \" issues.\" See para. 19. . we were not going to address the II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of AfricanAmerican Students A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan ( 29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and\\or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this revised plan. 2. 7 .1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 19 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6. 4. Utilization of moni taring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; ... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem ( 3 o. ) Two aspects of Section 2. 7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design [ ing]\" programs and other initiatives; rather, the initiatives must also be \"implement[ed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years, Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if you will remember, and in fact -- if I can find the document, and I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20 that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort. where I felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing different, not that I am not -- I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely. but we are getting there .... [At 450- 51; emphasis added] (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] ( 33.) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for 'LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999) 1 0 and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. The State requires local districts to give benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in grades four and eight. These instruments are 21 (Grade 3, Fall 1998) .ii On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level ( \"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of AfricanAmerican grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels ... , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13]= ( 34.) The federal educational program known as \"Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56; Tr., 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9; \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" March 15, 2002, 'Tab 5, at 9 J ii For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report, at 56. i 2 The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22 Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68; see 20 u.s.c. Sec. 2701] ( 35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title I programs. The March 2000 interim report described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The staff found that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignment between the Title I programs and the reaular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68; emphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr., 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else .... [Tr., 11-19-01, at 199-200] (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 Title I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding (i.e., originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] ( 39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.1 at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan, alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24 development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32; see also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures, some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed durihg 1998-99 and the Board of directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. The March 2000 report stated that \"PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD . \" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99; see also id. at 25 90 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: Implementation of standards-based, inquiry-based instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers and 4 5 3 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is a vitally important part of the new literacy program. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 200113 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2. 7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students ... \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. 13 See March 2000 report at 43, 44, 4 7, 48, 49; March 2001 report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 26 ( i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA ( \"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives 11 [CX 719, Policy IHBA] (ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R \"Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers \"of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [ i] is not performing on grade level (K-4); [ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8); and [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, 27 geometry, and\\or algebra.\" \"School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. 11 The regulation further provides: The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1. 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2. 7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, is also apparent. (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] ( 4 3. ) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999 11 the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91 ] (44 . ) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that -- particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get all that done. It has to be followed up over and over and over. And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so much. The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207, 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the Pre-K-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. 1 The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional develop-ment . . 'In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \" [ LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status.\" 29 investing in curriculum materials.' ... [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the \"Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based; 2 - partially implementing standards-based; 1 - minimally implementing standards based; O - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30 follows: \"4 - excellent; 3 - good; 2 - fair; 1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 32 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents a trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on the data provided, the District is in an active transition from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2. 4 ( on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000-01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] ( 48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3; compare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000 11 [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 (49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include . . an examination of the different forms of inter-ventions. II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum, LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the \"Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51.) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether the new PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32 Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, State Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination, which measure mastery of knowledge and skills, identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra; see also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, eight percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, yes, AfricanAmerican students were eight proficient. Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33 o. And a major part of your explanation for that result is that those students. in terms of the curriculum they had received. had not been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math. right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, 20 percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. o. And do you think that. again. that part of the reason for that was that the curriculum those students had had not covered many of the strands in the state benchmarks for literacy? A. Yes. [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21; emphasis added] (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were -- 4th grade literacy 19%; 4th grade math 14%; 8th grade literacy 18%; and 8th grade math only 49.c I 0. See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the gradeappropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34 new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004) . 1 5 (55 . ) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks; (b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2. 7; or ( c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than, as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras . 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 1 5 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of deli very of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). ( 57.) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 - 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on, \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such; the staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such, violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36 III. Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years, Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct, about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]; Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie) . i 6 (60.) The LRSD did not \"[develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . \"during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell); see also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 Carnine)] to 3 7 9 , 18 (Dr. (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show, at best, continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at \"See also ex 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [ i J the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01); [ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6. 6 times ( 1998-99), 4 .1 times ( 1999-2000), and 3. 7 times ( 2000-01); [ iii J the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01); and [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 1996-97 through 2001-02 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last {2001- 02) years of the six year period. [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances; [ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances; [iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 instances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [CX 741, at 1] ( 62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[lhg_._, Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the ORA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program, Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use ORA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black, from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 obligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students , \" See paragraphs 41-55. ( 65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 11 which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part 5 of the plan. Third. The assessment obligation is annual in nature. ( 67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w] ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably \" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions, that compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40 this proposition, when called as a witness by the Joshua Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to ( e) . (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver from State or District rules includes an evaluation design 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See ex 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. (CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44; emphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites, inter 41 alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [ at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [ at 52], and \" [ t ]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda August 1999.\" [At 53] approved by the Board of Education in (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" -- a title which is repeated at a later point in the discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12; see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook .. obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \"assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22; 243, 6 to 249, 14; see also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel) ] 17 The content of paragraphs 1 7 Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment from a \"program evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23] -- a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year. \"In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment'' as 42 (a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook obligation.\" [this] (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program, and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr. , 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, 23; at 389, 18 to 392, 18; at 400, 16 to 401, 22 (Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, inter-encompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43 nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley); at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 334, 5-14 ; at 495, 16 to 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley); Tr., 11- 20-0l, at 321, 21 to 322, 22; at 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9; at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below par. See para. 49. (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47; March 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44 \"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000 11 was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721; Tr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell); Tr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated ... [11] programs .... 11 [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001; there is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [ dd J The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001; it was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45 [hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727; Tr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is a collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728; Tr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [ j j] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship, dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729; Tr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief, undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2. 7 .1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46 Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [ two of] the parties ... \"[LRSD v. PCSSD, li, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)] -- the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaskui County Special School District, No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum, this court is called upon to apply the parties ' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)J The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation, and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteriaa is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\"); they form \"the law of [this] case.\" 1 8 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47 Construed as an entirety [seen. 1 at 1, supra], the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. [At 1199; emphasis added] The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are, first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable; \"[t]he consent decree did not state the time of its duration.\" See 139 F.3d at 1198. 48 the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, \"serious\" matters. given their subject matter, involve The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable .from one context to another. Like 'reasonableness,' ... 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance .... [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra J, Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49 B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on race.\" See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious.\" Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . \" [Sec. 2.5; emphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of life. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore, \"the law of this case.\" The (behavior failure to implement the modification plans) provisions can not of be Section 2. 5. 4 dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50 of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans; the LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C. Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] \"[T]he circumstances of [this] case ... \"[Fortin.supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program -- a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements of federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum, implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula, provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth J not performing well, and moni taring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43-51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so -- and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine); see para. 62. The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]; there have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At 1. para. BJ Manifestly, a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52 \"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Se 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_35","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-04/2002-05"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) 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/35"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["263 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\n\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 3 o 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General -y{\\~~~ ~--~~ MARK A. HAGEME~ #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen~ 11 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the. infqrm~tlpr,je'~y~\\labi'~ ifM~r~IiI~:i:ilJliii'Q~\n::lhi':A.. q~!ctila{~:~\ntR\nJ Equalization Funding fo'fFY 01/02, sLibjecftq][~ijpdic~djustrn:i3ht:: 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) 8 . Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;f,~~~ii,ai~~l~ll~1~~@:~:,vct1~ifli~~~arch'3JJ'~ma.2J'JR~:'6.:B~~aI~Ja'm8JgffEX C. Process and distribute State MFPA 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Qh fy1afchf C:ibci2, disttibutior116f$iate EqU~fi~jfBh f'D/\\dihg fq[FX'.oJ.%02:w\nr~ as.t611ows: LR.SD '~ $38,318,228 NLRS6\\ $20.~69,908 pcssD \u0026lt;$39,767,42b LRSD - $52, 189,~57 NLRSD - $28,093\n868 PCSSD - $54}!08:571 D. 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 April 30, 2002 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March31\n2a02 for FY 61102, subject to periodic adjustmellts. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2 Actual as of March 29, 2002 ~Ji~\n~~lf it:ft:.~lt\\~ii~~}~tl!~t~r01\n~~~c~~ati: ~~~~~\n/~-~~~~:iir~1 Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Bas~d on t'Re informiitiori avalfable, the A.DE calculated at March 31,-2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periqdic adjustments. . G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at March 31, 2002, totaled $8,136,297. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ois1r1ptvQHt'r8t:Rx::1t1zo2t~t M.~l~rt:~J\nr2002~~tet t,B:::~\n:i?.::rz:~g ,, NLRSD%$1403 839 ss6.::*I\nJs:1It'\n:ij12\nt~'iiWl{~\n~~~j1{m~ia:18? ~x=:6':rza:r~tMarar :f1\n-2602 .=su BJecIt o pehbd12 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;~~~--\"~,,,1tlll~~~11!!W~ A.tM~i~tt:i\n{J:n,go,02tlb\"~Lfq!Jow.16.H1~am@~bJ~:a@ .r 6fi_fi.,X:,.QJ102_,rni lillll M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process . The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process , external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled . Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities fo'r the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 15 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E of this report. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes , acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9 00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing C Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 2 4 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports . In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the re vised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkans.a$State soafa.of EdlJciltlBB'l ~vlewed and approveid\"the PMT and its executive sunWnary forthe inOr\\tti.of r,,AafcK\n31 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties . During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan , and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees , assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established , and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of April 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, ie , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative , \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000 The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students) , 6) how to correctly interpret scores . This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 44 VI REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training . The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrc\n3tors at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses . She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting . On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan , representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a val idated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SA T-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 51 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 53 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30 , 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9 00 a.m , Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":13,"next_page":14,"prev_page":12,"total_pages":16,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":144,"total_count":182,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":127},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":46},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Project management","hits":182},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":176},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":157},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":150},{"value":"School integration--Arkansas","hits":96},{"value":"School integration","hits":63},{"value":"School districts","hits":46},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":44},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":37},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":35},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":182},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":182},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":182},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":54},{"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":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2005","hits":18},{"value":"2006","hits":18},{"value":"2007","hits":18},{"value":"2004","hits":15},{"value":"2003","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":12},{"value":"2009","hits":12},{"value":"2010","hits":12},{"value":"2011","hits":12},{"value":"2012","hits":11},{"value":"2002","hits":9},{"value":"1994","hits":6},{"value":"2013","hits":6},{"value":"1998","hits":3},{"value":"1999","hits":3},{"value":"2001","hits":3},{"value":"1993","hits":2},{"value":"1995","hits":2},{"value":"1996","hits":2},{"value":"1997","hits":2},{"value":"2000","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1993","max":"2013","count":182,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":69},{"value":"projects (object groupings)","hits":60},{"value":"filing","hits":48},{"value":"planning","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":182}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}