{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1738","title":"District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Retirement","Insurance","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Students","African Americans--Education","School enrollment","School attendance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1738"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["64 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order dated March 1, 2002; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, order; Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, second motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \\: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR -1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") files the agreements identified below and attached hereto as required by the Court's order filed March 1, 2002: I. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD; 2. Early Childhood Special Education agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD andNLRSD; 3. Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: unitary status, sale of bonds and $20 million loan. 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and the State re: magnet seats. 1 5. Agreement between the LRSD and Knight dated February 6, 1999, re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1Attached is what the LRSD believes to be the final draft of that agreement. Counsel for the LRSD could not locate an executed copy of the agreement in their files. - 6. Agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua and Knight dated February 8, 1999 re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 7. Settlement Agreement between the LRSD and PCSSD dated February 9, 1999 re: pooling agreement and teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 8. Agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 re: past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring of the LRSD. 9. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as modified and incorporated into Section 4 of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Section E of PCSSD's Plan 2000 (not attached). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989 (not attached). The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31 , 1989. Magnet Stipulation dated February 16, 1987 (not attached). M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 (not attached). Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCTA regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BYoiu~:c. t-~d' Fendley, Jr. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 1, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 A. COVER PAGE Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program , PROJECT TITLE Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 1. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Institution Little Rock School District and University of Central Arkansas Please check ~ categcry: Recruilment -L Preparation __ Professional Dev. b. Street/P.O. Box_ __- -\"9'\"'4. .1.7. \"--\"G\"\"e'\"'\"y\"\"er-'S\"\"p'-'-r'-'-in_,g=-s.:..R:.:o.:a=-d_ ___c . City Little Rock GRANT APPL/CATION NO. d. County ___ P-'u=la~s\"'\"k'\"\"i ___________ e. State_\"\"'A'\"'R ___ f. Zip Code. _ __:.7-=2=20=9._ __ _ g. PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) Name _ W.;..:.;:a:.:.:n.:d=-a ,B:.:a:.;:s:.:.:k:..:.;in:.:.s..:a:.:..:n.:d..;.Ka::ac.:.:.th.:.:.;lee=-=n'-\"A..,t,.,,ki::..,.n:::..s _______________ _ Email: WFBaskila)MCC.LRSD.Kl2.AR.US Telephone: 501-570-4144, 501-224-7736 and 501-450-5429 Department: Career and Technical Education Fax: 501-570-4144 and 501-224-7736 2. NAME(S) OF COLLABORATING SCHOOL 3. NAMES, TITLES AND PHONE #'S OF COLLABORATING SCHOOUCOLLEGE OFFICIALS Dr. Kathleen Atkins, Chair of Early Childhood and Special Educ. 501-450-5429 DISTRICTIS) AND COLLEGES Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special School District, UCA, UAPB, UALR, and Henderson PERSONS WHO WILL PROVIDE INSTRUCTION (name and department) A Dr. Alvin Futrell, ColleQe of Education at Henderson and Dr. Kathleen Atkins, ColleQe of Education at Univ of Central AR  Or. Bill GeiQer, ColleQe of Education at UALR 3. Or. Dorethea Davis, College of Education at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 6. PROPOSED FUNDING 7a. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT a. Grant Request $ 47,400 .00 (#) OF APPLICANT INSTITUTION(S): b. Applicant Match $ 48,050 .00 .00 7b. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (#) OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SERVED: c. Cooperating Partner Match $ $ 1---------------+--------------i d. Other .00 Ba. PROJECT START 8b. PROJECT DURATION e. TOTAL $ 95,450 .00 JANUARY 1, 2002 12 MONTHS 9. PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 10. 11 . AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT ACTION TAKEN a. Awarded ____ _ b. Rejected ____ _ :eturn for amendment _____ _ d. Withdrawn _____ _ NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 12. FUNDING a. Grant Award $ b. Applicant Match $ c. Cooperating Partner $ Match d. Other $ e. TOTAL $ TITLE: DATE: TITLE: DATE: 13. REMARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOT Program Director Chair/Early Childhood TOT Project Director Chair Early Childhood ...;  EXHIBIT \\_--------~------..J-----~---------~1 I !,. IC 8. PROJECT ABSTRACT Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program Please type. Complete all items on both sides. This form will be submitted to the Governor's office. PROJECT TITLE: Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 INSTITUTION: University of Central Arkansas PROJECT DIRECTOR(S): Wanda Baskins (Little Rock School District) Dr. Kathleen Atkins (U.C.A) PARTICIPATING LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District Category chosen ___X _T eacher Recruitment and Retention _____ Teacher Preparation ~ ___ Teacher Professional Development (check which area) Mathematics Science __ Foreign Language __ Special Education NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: _330 _In-Service Teachers --- Pre-Service Teachers _50_ College Faculty _350_ Other (Explain) Celebration in Teaching Program Banquet and Hall High Symposium PROJECT RATIONALE (Brief statement of assessed needs) : According to The National Education Association we are facing the most critical teacher shortage in history . Nationwide, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition, retirement, and increased student enrollment. An estimated 6 percent of the nation's teaching force leaves the profession and 7 percent change schools per year. The National Center of Education Statistics report twenty percent of all new teachers will leave the field of teaching within three years, while nearly fifty  percent of new teachers in urban areas will exit the profession their first five years of teaching . As we face higher teacher attrition rates and decreased number of graduates in teacher education programs, public school student enrollment will continue to increase. By 2008 public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, and approximate 2 million increase over today's enrollment. - While research based statistics on teacher shortage in Arkansas are difficult to locate, districts in the state are finding that hiring new teachers is becoming more problematic (\"School Districts Make Sweet Deals to Attract Teachers,\" Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1999). The Arkansas Department of Higher Education 2 disseminated data in 2000 on the number of graduates with Baccalaureate and Master's Education Degrees in Arkansas from 1994-1999. This data indicates fewer number of students graduated with education degrees jiSE and MSE degrees combined) in 1999 than in previous years. Clearly this will have an impact on the . ilability of future teachers. Recruitment of future teachers must also focus on quality. With the current state and national emphasis on student achievement, we must recognize in order to improve student achievement we must improve the quality of teaching. Our future teachers of Arkansas must receive preparation programs that ensure the building of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a qualified teacher. The Teachers of Tomorrow Program seeks to continue long-range teacher recruitment efforts for Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts by promoting and expanding the future teacher clubs/classes and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. Although fewer college students are pursuing teaching careers, the redesign of the Teachers of Tomorrow Program using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet and Pro Team curriculum is encouraging. The Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) funding is vital for the enhancement of secondary and middle school classes being offered, and is needed to help provide networking opportunities for educators in the state who are interested in teacher recruitment and retention. \"For many, the pre-teaching experience acts as a springboard to college, career, and personal relationships where learning can be applied and nurtured.\" (May 2001 Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.) 3 GOALS (Statement of specific learning and performance objectives for participants): 41,als of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, TOT 2002, are to: 1) implement elective classes designed to encourage secondary students to consider teaching as a profession (using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet curriculum) 2) promote networking and recruitment opportunities between public schools, two-year colleges, and four year institutions 3) develop an awareness about the teacher shortage in Arkansas and 4) complete training/certification of two Teacher Cadet trainers. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT} which will be shared publicly (200 words): The Teachers of Tomorrow program seeks to continue its long range teacher recruitment efforts for Arkansas by promoting and expanding the existing Teachers of Tomorrow program and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. The activities will include: providing materials and training for secondary school teachers to implement the Teacher Cadet class (senior high school) curriculum developed by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment.  conducting a statewide Teacher Recruitment Conference in fall 2002 that is designed for secondary and higher education students, public school administrators and faculty, and teacher educators.  providing the means for two Arkansas teachers to become Teacher Cadet trainers (by completing final cycle of training in Little Rock summer workshop).  designing and distributing a teacher recruitment pamphlet for students in two-year colleges . .  supplying Teachers of Tomorrow Clubs and TOT coordinators in the tri-district area with support in order to plan student activities and carry out various collaborative activities.  Expand elective classes to include middle school students exploring teaching as a career (using the South Carolina Pro Team Curriculum).  Create a TOT website which will include a database for club and class participants. Institutions involved in the Teacher of Tomorrow collaborative include: Little Rock School District, North - ittle Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, Henderson State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 4 . .03/ 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 I t \u0026gt;    EQUITY Pl.FIL SERVICE .. I( : ~. .- 2-1-20. 02. 1.0 ;~ 14 . F.'R (JII! TO:';'l~ i\"---------~ ~- ------------=---- : . :  .. I ' I ; ; CONSOLIDATED PRESCHOOL ' GRANT APPLICATION FOR I ' SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ; : RELATED SERVICES : :::  : I .. . . ,   ~ L  \\ . . I j ; .. ' ; ; ' I I . I I SECTION6J.9 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH I I DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT ' I. -AND STATE FUNDS /: I :1 : I' ' ~ ' ' ' : : fi ' i ; ' : ; ' ARKANSAS DEPARTivfENT OF EDUCATION ., : , ; ' 2001-02 .. ' : ,. f .. I .. i ; I .. ; . . '. ' ., : ; J .. ' : -- - -- ..  i l .~ IC p~ 02/16 P . 002\"'01 .1 i: ! .. , i ' :t ., '  ' . I ; : : - '' i ! ii !/ ~ -. '  ! ' : ; EXHIBIT z ' I I i '  ' . ;., , - 1: : . ,. :i l !! I I EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '34900254 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVlCE AGENCIES . Adopdon of Proccdul\"C$: The applicant agrees to implement Spectal Education and Related '. Srrvi~~: Procedural \u0026amp;cp,tremuit:l and Program Standards and S~cial d11catlon Ellgib/Jily ; Cr/Jeri a and Program Guidelims for Childrun with Dlsabilitie$. Ages 3  21 to ensure that it  provid~ special eduwion services to emlble clu1dren with disabilities, ages three to; five~ to ' participate in regular educational programs and that each child has a properly developed , inc,vidualized education program. ; AdvJSory Committee: Where several LEAs consolidated their prcschool .scmccs, the applicant :. agrees to establish a local advisory committee. The committee must consist of the special ; edu~tion supervisors from participating LEAs and at least one superintendent. The committee : will be co-chaired by the early childhood coordinator and a LEA special education supervisor : select~ by the committee. The committee will meet at least bi-monthly, DocumentAtion of each meeting will be kept en file. : A!,istive Technology: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300,308, shall ensure that . assistive technology devices or assistive technology~ or both, as defined in 34 CFR 300.5 ,  300,6, are made available to a: child with a disability if required as a part of the child's (1)  Special Ed1.1cation under 34 CFR 300,26, (2) R~ated services under 34 CFR 300,24, or (3)  Supplementary aids and ser'.Vices under 34 CFR 300,28 and 300,SSO(b)(2), : Child Ctrc: The applicant assures that preschool grant funds shall not be used for the securing ' ofbasic child care and that these monies be used only for the provision of special education and rcl~ted services rend~ by,. a qualified provider. It i\u0026amp; pemussible ro expend preschool grant funds to pay costs associ.ited with a regular daycare placement when it is determined ~hat: ' l,;'~stidr educational placement-is needed to provide :a Free Appropriate Public Education ' (FAP.E) to a child, and  . ,. I ~- ; ; ' '  2. ::sbch:educarlqnal placement is necessary to satisfy th~ provisions of the cl\\ild's individualii=  , : education program (lEP). The decision to place a child'\"in, a rc:gula.r daycare program -win be made on a ca1\u0026amp;-by-asc oasis, The State guidelines for a Integrated Preschool Settine must be used in determining a child's ; riee.d(for,an educatjonai pla~ent in a regular daycare program .  1., : , . . Complaint ProcufuttS of ID State! The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 660, ' ~ that it will provide a. copy of the wrinen procedures fur Complaint Management to parents of children with disabilities when they llre notified of their procedural safeguar\u0026lt;is, 2 .. .. , ' I PAGE 03/16 P.003-'014  :i ; 1 i ' I ,''- . 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 'i ;_  . :I . l\". FR-, 21-20 02 10~ 14 ~: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: ';),q~e0c:54 , Coordination of Projects: The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 76.580, as~ : to the extent possible, it coordinate each of its projects with other activities that are in the same ; geographic area served by the project and targeted groups. Appropriate methods of coordination  include:   l. :Planning the project with organizations and individuals who have sinu1ar objectives or concerns; : 2.  Sharing information, facilitie~, staff, services or other resourc~;  J .. ~ngaging in joint activities such as instruction, needs assessment, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance or swf training; ;. 4., 1N?_t ~uplicating or counteracting the effects of funds used under 9thcr programs; ilild S. Using the project funds to increa.(e the impact of funds made available under other programs , . :for the same purpose. Dls:ciplinnry Information: The applicant, in accordarn:e with 34 CFR JOO .Sl9  300.529, ' as~r'es thnt it will maintain in the records ofa child with a disability a statement of any current  or -previous di5ciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statei:nent -~ to th~ same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the  studt;tt records ofnondisahled children. If the State has such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include: both the child1 s current individuaftz;cd education program and any such statement of current or previous disciprmary action that has been taken !lgainst the child. ' Idui!:itional Responsibilil)'! The applicam agrees to provide special education and related  services on the behalf of assigned LEAs for duldrcn with disabilities, ages three to five; under  Section 619 of IDEA 97. The applicant will develop an inter-agency agreement with the: : appropriate Head Start pro,rain for the provision of special education a.nd related services as specified in the Memo~-um ofUndersr.anding (between the Arkansas Department ofE.ducation and !_iead Start) consi!tent with the federal regulations for Head Stcrt, Public Law 102A01 . . E1cess Cost: The applicant, in accordance ',l,,'ith 34 CFR 300.184  300.185, a.$SUres that funds pr9ided under Section 619 of IDEA 97 wit! be used Q!ll:l for excess costs. Extended School Ycsr: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.309, shall ensure that ~ded school year $er-vices are available as n~ as to provide a m:e appropriate public education. H~r.ing Aids: The applieant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.3031 shall ensure that the hearing aids wom in school by children with hearing impairments. including d~ are functioning properly . . . . I : . -: .. . : ; :,, PAGE 04/16 P,l!IEM'01,q -I !: rnunv PUPIL SERVICE T0:'3'1~4 Least Restrictive Environment: The applicant, in accord Mee with 34 CFR. 300.SSO - 300.556, assures it has adopted the policies and procedures of Special Education and l~laled Serv/\"3: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Section IJ, pages 1 and 2; and Section 17, pag$2. I L\u0026amp;2J lnterngcncy Committee: The applicant agrees to establi$h a local interagency committee comr.osed oflocal agencies and int~ parties for the dissemination of information and to establish a network of services. The committee will meet at le~ quarterly. Documentation of attendees and minutes of i;aeh mc::ting must be kept on file. Meet[nis: The applicant agrees that individuals employed under this application will p81t!cipate in training institutes and scheduled meetings sponsored by the Arkansa. Department of 4.u~tion, Sp~ial Edu~tion. I N o.n~crimhultioa and Employment of tndividuala wil.h Disnbilitics: The applicant assu~ that the program assisted under. Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be operated ,n compliance with Title!45 of the Code ofFedenl Regulations, Pa.rt 84. (A formal ast:Urance statemem should be on -~e with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Hllman Services.) , I Nonsuppbnting: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.230, usures that funds prqvided. under Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be used to supplement and, to the cctcnt ptjlciicablc, increuc the level of State a.nd Local funds e,\u0026lt;pended for the education of children with disabilities, ages three to 6ve. and in no case to supplant those State and Local funds. :: ..- :; ,, : . Nti~ber or Days for l\u0026gt;ired Services: The prcscltool instructional calendar shall consist of200 days of direct services .funded by the prescltool grant. The first day of services can be Jio earlier th~\\August' 1. Dim:t services will cease by June 30. An audit will be peronned to verify sctvice delivery of200 days; Faiturc to comply will result in an audit e,c~on. Please provide a school calendar or llstin.g of day per momh that services will he provided. Please use the caJ~dar included in the application. Personnel Devdopment: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR. 300.221, assures that it ba.-. tiled':with the State information to demonstrate that (1) all personnel necessary to cany O'llt Section 619 o!lDEA 97 within the jurisdictign of the agency are adequate!y prepared cons~ wi~ the requirement of 34 CFR 300.380- 300.382, and (2) to the extent the public agency determine! appropriate, it shall contribute to and use the Comprehensive System of P~onnel Development of State established under 34 CFR 300.135. 1 f, . . Foliciet .and Program, Consistent with EUgfbillty Provisions: The appficant. in accordance withi 34 CFR 300.220, assures that it has in cffcc:t policies.. procedure! and programs- that are ~$istei,t with Stare policies and procedlftS established under 34 CFR 300.121 - 300.156 . . The applics.nt mUSt have on file with the State polici~ and procedu~ on the following: (l} Child Identification, (Z) Confidentiality, and (\u0026gt;) Individualized Education Program. I I ' 4 ': I ' . / PAGE 05/16 P,00S\"014 / . 1: .; 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 l1 : ~~~ ;10:1~ FROM: . j iii . EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TOt94980a54 iL\\ ,  .-;,, Procrdund Safeguards: The spplicant, in accordance with 34 CPR 300.500 - 515 300.517 incorybrat~ by rcfcn:nc~ tile proi:ed1.2~ of the SEA in Special Education and Relatfd  Stsl'Vices: Procedural Reqz/iJ-emrmts and Program Standards., Sections 4 through 16. , \"ro,grnm Options: The applicant, in aoc;ordance with 34 CFR. 300.124, usures compliance with th~provi~on of.a continuum ofser-lice options. The program options that arc designed to meet thejull educational goal in pre.school education are as follows: 1. , Preschool class on the public school campus 2. Regular p~hool (including Head Start)  3. Special Day Service Facility licensed by Developmental Disability Services  4. 'Home ServiQ?S 5. Itinerant Service - Services provided to children through an itinerant mode for intensive _;_ ,  :.i?struction which may~ developmentally appropriate or therapeutic. Primary use of.this '  service may be speech-l11nguage pathology given by a qualified provider or special instruction . by an e.u-ly childhood special education consultant teacher. 6 .. '. '.Hospital 7. Re!idential  Note: Each child mu!t be presented with at least three placement options (settings) wh~re the IEP can be appropriately implemented.  P~t~tion in tvnlu!!rion Procedures: The applicant, in ~ccordance with 34 CFR 300.530. ' 300.536, adopts by reference the procedures of the SEA in Special EducaJJon and Related . Se.ry/ce3: Procedural Requirements a,id Program Standards, Sections 4, 6 and 7.  I f   , , Pul\u0026gt;l~c! Control of Funding: The appUce.nt assures that control of funds provided under Section '.. 619 qflDEA 97 and Statc/I.oc.al funds committed to Special Edu.cation in accordance with Ark 6de Ann. 6-203 l 0 and title to property acquired with those funds is in a public agency for the ._ \\lSCS and purposes-authorized and as provided in the Mansas Department of Education, School  and :Educational Service Cooperative F'inincial Accounting Manual. . .. J:lccdrd, lhld Reports: The:applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.240, agrees to ;provide information as may be neceasary to enable the State Education Agm:;y to perf'mm its duticz, and  the applicant agrees to -keep such records a, the State Educ:itional Ageney may require to ensure '. rhe'~rrectness and verification ofthe iruorma.tio~  Rctciltion of Records: Education Department General Adrninisir:\u0026gt;tive Regulations (EDGAR) 34: CFR. 76.734 requires that recipients of Section 619 funds retain for five (5) years after completion of the activity for which they use grant or subgrant funds, any record needed to fully show compliance with pn)~ and administrative requirements. The Special Education Office !fas been advised by the U.S: Department ofEducation, Office of. Special Education Programs, 5 PAGE 07/16 .-.-,w. .. I   I I I I; Ii !' ~: 1 .. ... ,''. EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ that~ include individualized education progmns (IDs). The ilRplir.ant as,w~ to take all of the necessan: steps to retain nil records for at tesst five (S} years after tbe completion of the activitv S~ces :ind Aid.s That Also ~enetit No.nd.i!abled Oindren: The applicant, in accordance with: 34 CF'R. 300.235, as!ures that costs of special education and related services and supp/ementary aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to 2 ,}illci with a disability are in accordance with the individualized education program of a. child, even if one or more nondisabkd children benefit from such services. . I . Gtn~rnl Education l\"n,visiona Act: The applicant assures that it will comply with :the assurances set forth below as stated in the General Education J\u0026gt;rovisions Act in compliance with 20 llS.C. 1.232 e(b)(J),(S),(7),(A)\u0026amp;(B),(S) and (9). The general application submitted by a i pu~li~ asency under subsection (a) shall \u0026amp;et forth assurances -   1)  1'hiU the public agency will administer each program covered by the application in  accordance with all appUe2ble statutes. regulations, program plans, and applications; ; 2) : That the control of funds pr.ovided to the public agency under each program and titl~ to : property acquired with those funds, will be in a public agency and that a public aiency will  . :~minister those funds and property;  : 1' 3) .. That the public agency will use fiscal control and :fund accounting procedure\u0026amp; that will ensure  .' P,roper disbursem~ of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to that agency under each \\ ;:program; t) ;i'l:h~t the public agency will make reports to the State agency or board and_ :to :,the .. ) Commissioner u may reasonably be necessary to enable the Stare agency or board: and:the ;: .. -Commissioner to perform their duties and that the public asency will maintain such records, J ncluding the records required under Section 437, and provide access to those records, as !he  St~te agency or board or the Commission~ deem necessary to pem,rm their dutic~ 5) . That the public agency will provide reasonable opportuniti~ for the participation QY ~e~ : parents, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals in the planning for an ;  : operation of each program;  6) ,That any application. evaluation, periodic program plan or report refating to each program : will be made readily available to parents and othet memben of t~c general public; 7) . That in the case of any project involving construction - A.) The project is not inconsistent with overall Staie plans for the construction of school facilities, and 6 . ,,, : PAGE 08/16 P.007\"81~ .j ., ! j. I  1 ; . i ! !:\u0026gt;Ul4'.:H:H 352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '3\"t~  / B) 1n developing plans f'or construction, due consideration will be given to excellence of   architecture and d~ign and to c:ompliance with standard~ prescribed by th1: Scc:~buy under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to emure that fkcilitica ' ' construeted with the use ofFedcral funds are acc:!Ssiblc to and usable by individuals with disabilities; . . . I S) '.That the public: agency has adopted emctive procedures for acquirilli and disscmi~atirig to teachers and admmistrators participating in each prosram significant information from , cduational research, demonstrations, and .similar projects, and for adoptini where  I '  appropriate, promising educational p~cticcs developed chrough such projects; and 9) .: That none of the funds expended undc:r any applicable pYOgnm wtll be used to ' acquire equipment (Including computer software) in any inStance in which such acquisition results . , . _ir,i a direct financial benefit to any organization representing the interests of the purchasing ,.. :: entity or its employees or ~y affiliate of such an organization.  Notice of Required Actinn~ by tbe SEA . The SEA is required under Section 619 of IDEA 97 to pr~vide notice to public agencies of the foll,o~ing actions: Direct Services by the Seate .Educ:ttion Agcnty: The Arkansas Department cf Education (ADE), Speci~l Education.Unit has the responsibility to ensure that the provisions of a free appropriate public education (F APE) are met for eligible stud~s with disabilitie5, ages 3 - 21. Consistent with the provision! afJ4 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 300.360, a State Education Agency (SEA) shall use the payments tlm othei:wiae would have been available to an LEA or to a State agency to provide special ed~cation arid r.cl~ scrvic:es directly to children with disabilities residing in the area served by that local agency, or for whom tha1 State agency is n:sponsiblc, if the SEA determines that the LEA or Stat~ agency - a. Hu not provided the infonnation needed to establish the eligibility of the agency undsr  Part B of lhe Act; . -~. Is unable to establish and maintain programs ofFAPE that meet the requirements of this , ',! I ; part; .. :c.  1s unable or unwilling robe consolidated with one or more LE.As in order to. establish and ; ,,'. ,; .; maintain the programs; or  , d. Has one or more children with disabilitiC$ who .can best be served by a regional or State program or service-delivery system designed t9 meet the needs of these childmi, 7 PAGE 10/16 P. 008-'e:. :, ., :J i I . , :: i , ;ii . r:: I . i i I ; ~: 1 ! 1r :l i 1:. i 1.JJ l I ... . !: .  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: 9\"1900254  ..: , ! , When It is brought to the attention of the ADE through: .  ai  The enforcement of a decision .from an Impartial Due Process Hearing; b.  A complaint invcstignrion under the Complain, Procedures of the State; . c: Compliance monitoring of a public s.gency; or ' .  ,: l A request from a parent or public; aicncy tha~ the SEA assume the responsibility for . Direct Services; , I . . '. th~:ADE, Special EducatiotrUnit will implement the following procedures before final action is ' tak;ai by the ADE to assume the provision of Direct Services to an eligible student(s) with ~'-, ~i~iliti~s, ages 3 - 21. 1.  The Associate Director for Special Education will: :  a; Provide written notice co the public ag~cy that the SEA ha.s re3$on to suspea t~t it is . not providing a free appropriate public education to an eligible student(s) with .  ; : , disabiliti.es. ages 3 - 21, on rhe basis of one or more of the conditions set forth in 34 CFR . 300.360    -:bl  State the sourcc(s) of the_ infonnatio~ that has led.the SEA to suspect that the district is . not providing a fu;c appropriate public erlucution for the student(s) in question. c. Appoint a Team to conduct an investigation onhe situ.stionfc;omplaint.  I ; ; l.  ,The Investigative Team will review the public agency's provision ofFAPE in light of the  ; 'conditions set forth in 34 CFR 300.360.  . . : 3 . . The Team will follow the procedures the ADE has ~opted for its Complaint Procedures of ' ; the, Slate, as provided for in 34 CFR 300.660  300.662. ; . :.; ; i . : . . . . : 4,:;1The.Team will provide a written report and submit it to the Associate Ditectot. S' .. iF'.ollowing receipt of the report. the Associate Director will notify the parties concerned as \u0026gt;to the findings of the !nvc.,tigative Temn.  6 . . : Showd sufficient _evidence exist -to demonstrate that the public agency is not providing F ~  as a result ofa condition in 34 CFR 300.360, the Associate Director \"'ill notify the puplic agency that the ADE. intends to take the neccasary 3teps to provide Direct Servi~c:s to an . '.. .eligible swdcnt(s) with disabilities, ages 3 -21, within the jurisdiction of the public'ageticy. 8 i :' PAGE 11/16 P.089\"1U\u0026lt;I ,i .i ; ! I .! . . . ! u~, ~ ~l~UU~ 10 ; ~~ OOlq~Ul3~L EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE J: -~1-2002 :nh1, ml'!= TQ:94900254 \"I . : r . . .. . ,. .   : r ., . , I : !; ~1 , . i 1. I I r,=- I :1 -,;   1! ' I_ l i \\ : ;: ,. ! r  1 :1 t J! ! l I I' 1'. ! '\"i' ;: ! ' ~ ~ .' ''. ; 7. ,The public agency will be provided notice that it h~ the opportunity for a hearing on this :matter before the State's chief e\u0026lt;.il.lcation official, (the Director of the AD), or his/her - ~~  ; \u0026amp;.  :To :avail itself of tM opportunity for a hearint on the proposed provision of Direct Services : by the APE, the Chief Administrative Official of the P\\Jblic Agency must $Ubmit a written request for a hearing to the Associate Director for Special E\u0026lt;iucation within 3 O days of notice or the proposed action by the ADE. - 9.  'Within ten (lO) busines; day.s ofretQpt by the Associllte Director afa written request by the ;-pilblic agency for a huring, the ADE Director will .set a mutually agreeable dtte, time and .location for the hearing and advise the Chief Administrative Official of the Public Age'rq of this in writing. 1 -: ' I .. _ ! . io. The ADE Director, or dcsignee, will consider the evidence presented by the Chief  Administrative Official of the Public Agi:ncy and the Associate Director for Special  'Education, or designee.    11. Within ten (10) business days af completion of the hearing. the ADE Director will submit :written findinss of fact, the decision and reasons fof the ruling with regard to the provision . ; -of:Pirect Services by the ADE. in compliance with 34 CFR 300,360. ; 12. lfthe AD. determines that its action v,,ag contrary to state or fodE:ral statutes or regul:itions '.t~at govern the applicable program, the ADE shall rescind its action . . ! . : .. J'.3. Public agencies will be notitied of their right to ap.peal a decision of the ADe Director to - ;~h~old IDEA- Part B funds to \\he Secretary ofqjucation, U.S. Departm\u0026lt;:nt of'Education. 14. The public age,cy must file a notice oFthe appeal wtth the Secretary wi\\hin 20 days after the : :public agency has been ~otitied by the ADE Director of the tinaf decision of the hearing. - 1.S. 1)lc .Associate Diraotor fbr Special Education will advise the Administrator, Grants ~f!d Dara )vfanagement, in writing as to when to witlihold and when to restore IDEA -! P~ B payments to che Public Agency. ; ! t ' ' I : WhJ ~~ ADE has det~ncd that it will assu~ rhe provision of Direct Services tci ensure F APE,. the A.OE may provide special education and related scr.-ices in sucll a manner and at !Uch lo~ons (including, regional or State centers) as the ADE consideTS appropriate.  i . Public Agency Compliance: If the SEA, in accord~ with 3 4 CTR 300: 197, after reasonable ~ notide .and an opportunity. fer a hearing; finds that a public agency that na.s been determined to , I '  I 9 ' ' l '  . '. PAGE 12/16 ~ .~ld'IOl\"' I  ,. 'i :j i :, ,, . _p3t 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 ~;-21-2002 : 10: i 7. FROM:  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'\\900aS4 ' j -   , I .  i .. l;,e-digi1\u0026gt;1e under mis :scdion ~ Awl1J to com9ly 'Mth acy reqwremem d~ed in 34 cat. 300:220 -300.250, the SEA shall reduce orma:y -not ~de any iiu1her psyments to the LEA or: stz1e ageney utd tho SEA is satl!ilcd that lhe eublic agency is complying w\\th that \\ ~~  ~ p-.i,lic agency in re.a:ipt o a notice desc:n'bcd in the first pan.graph of this section shall. by ,m~ of public~ take the mea.ues necessary to~ the pe:11de:'D)' of an action punmnt w this ~on to ~ \u0026amp;ttcntion of the publle within 1he jurisdiction of~~- -~ ~ out its funaion undet this secticn, each SEA shall co~dcr urt decisiOll resu11inl fi'om a hearing \"l,Illde:-34 CF.R. 300.S07 - 300.52\u0026amp; that is adverse ta the pubiie agem;y involnd iD'tbc ~sioca. ~cies 'Will ~c ~t othia infonnariOG by i.ignu,1 pa\u0026amp;e 10  . . .  I .  :. _m'ITfICATION . I,, ,:mt UNDERSIGNED A'U'l11ORl'ZED lW'RiS!:NTATlV?, RDOY CERTll\"Y UL\\T THE APPUCANT ACENCY,S GOVERNING BODY JIAS ~OPTE~ THE ,'BOV:t ASSURANCES AND lS Aw All or u.QU!.R.!l\u0026gt; ACIIOl\"iS )Y nm SEA . UUTIVE TO DIRECT SERVICES AND POBUC J\\GENCY COMPLIANO. '. :_ .. . ~ : . .' ; ?l'tith-Little a:d. Sdl:Xll ~ \"-nd~a.d.yQuldlXd~ i.f -~  '  ; ~ '.  ! :  !\" : . i ' ; :. \\ '. . ~ t  ~! -~ . ~  . . .  I  j 10 PAGE 13/16 I-' .16l.l'112l. .. ' ' t EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ Au.dlo~oo l:ctu\u0026amp;;atiou Sen-ice ooperaeive ~ Chilclhoo4-Spctjal Edua\u0026amp;n  2001~ ~oo, Y~ . ~ ~ol districts ~ below hn-c established an ~emo:Ji urviee c:oopcratiw  a\\:!mmistra.tive mangemem flit 1hc purpose or providhla =arJy r;hildhood spc:cial cducatiai services in accordance widi Ark. Code AM. 6-41-~ and Section cSl 9 ot'mt IDEA 97. The ; ~e of this coopcr.mve is: ' '  'lt\\-otstnct .k1Y ~ Little a:a: I.EA.Number Supcrin~d=t's Signature l!tx1h LiC:la lt)dC ~ , 1 . School District : LEA# Sc:hool ])istrict LE.All Superlnt;ndcnt's Signature  Su~cniicut s Sign~  ,.   School Disuict LEA# School District LEAi Superilltcndcnt', Si~ Superiutcndent' s SignDJre.  :: 1  School Dinrict I .i  , , ; :, .,, LE.A.# .,  .  I . Superintendeat's ~ - .. '' ;  'School District I.EA# School District LEA# ; ' I  48 PAGE 14/16 P.012\"014 .I, .:' F I ;i ! ., . ' ' ! EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'1900254 Authoriation . Ednca.tiOJl Senicc C-oop~tive E:nly ChilAood Sp,dal 1?:duc:i.1io~ 2001~2 School Y c:iT   The scl\\ocl districts listed 1,elow have established u educatioa service c:aoperadve . ..  ~e ammgement fonbe purpose o!providmg early childhood specai ~an '  ::: StJ'Yic:siaacariaDcc with Ark. Code Ann. 6-41-220 and Sccticn619 otlaeIDEA97. :tnc: ' ~ ~this COQye:iative is:  . .  'B:l.-ciec:ril%. ! QJ:i.lthm ~ Little lb:!( exi:z ., , Cooperative . 11ie sigr.atum bel0w verify !his arrangement 1M mtborize \\he above named coo~ to use . : : : funds a:pproprlllted by kt 1392 of 1999 to help provide services to three through nve 'fe3r old  ( i:bildd~isab-ilities.  .:;_~ ' ; '  . Si.penmen  s Signature Su~deu't' 1 Signattn .- :~9?Jl:'i 8)-03  Schoel District Soperintendem' a Signature .. . : I ; . lEAi . 1. : I.EA# .. , .... __________ _ Saperinttndeat'i Signature '! .  .,! .I;.._. - '-----,---- -~-- .,  , ,  Scllool Distiict LEA I  i . : Sc.~ool District LEA,# ,a School D~trict School District Supetiattndent' $ Signatite School District LEA :;, Superin~s SignatuR School District LEA. ,. I . ,. ' ,,I ' i EG!U11Y PUPIL SERVICE T0:~90025-4  Authorizatioa Educado11 Senice Cocp~tive bdy Owdhood Special Edutatio lOOI-G? School Year Th:\u0026amp; ~chool districts listed below haw eatabtisbcd m educatioa. iemce eoopermve . , ., - nistrative aaangeaicmfor1he purpose of-providing early childhood special edu.ciltioti sctvictt in accordance with Ark. Code Aim. 641-220 and Section 619 of the IDEA 97. ne name af1his eoopendiVe is: ,: I 'lri~ ?arly ~ ~ Y' tt''! );xx O:,oper.dive B\u0026gt;:02 LEANambl:r The si~ below verify this arrangement a:id authorize the above :named cooperative 10 use fun~ appropriated by Al:t 1392 of 1999 to hclp provide secvi~ to 'three through five year old (?hild~ with dist   I -'i  . './ ~  I ~ bx ED-01. School Dutrict . LEA# ': ' f .Superintendent's Signatutt  ' I LEA# Superintendent's Signaiure School District LEA# ;i I ,' '  1 : S11perinteo.d.el1t'1 s~ LEA# r i i . I  i ; ' . Supcrin~cndent's Sign\u0026amp;IUre School District I.EA# Superintendent's. sign~ School Di3aic:  LEA# School Dutrict ' LEA# Sup~e:nt's Sjgnatun, School :Oisaict , , ., PAGE 16/16 j\" ;  ' i ! VVr 1\u0026lt;.Vr V...L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE STA TE OF ARKANSAS Ths Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board ofEducation, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as . the Parties. REC1TALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to tenninate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of$20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgive~ or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the State's current funding formula for public school districts, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula; WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects tRSD's per pupil revenue; Page I of 8 -,i EXHIBIT 3 VO/ 701 U..L .l.D.L1 .J..U . LlO rrt.A WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS I. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11 .8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001. 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts to attain complete unitary status and - release from court supervision. the State agrees that it will not seelc to modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3. I Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State's ability to seek modification or  termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8 ~UUJ court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or tennination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3 .2 The State agrees to cooperate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or tenninate the States' s obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: (I) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement; (2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; (3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undennines this Agreement; (4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any chaUenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. In recognition of the LRSD's efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSD's efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8 1.1:!JVV't U!\u0026gt; / ~0/U.l lllLI J. 0 . '10 r JU. as follows: 4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds in the joint escrow account estabfo;hed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the J 989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July 1, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4.3 For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete - unitary status and release from federal court supervision ~ of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 ~vvu subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of . interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4 .3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event th.is Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shaJI negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI .B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the tourt, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page S of 8 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, hut the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in fu)] force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shalf negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event stJch relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution. 6. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8 U~/ZG/U1 lHU 10:4/ t'AA - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. It is specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. AJ1 covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the '6ay of March, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 ~vvo UtS / l!l / Ul. 1.11LI .to : \u0026lt;11 rft.A ~vvo UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION H:lliligatioo~uget\\A,bi,su AG - Oacglmi\u0026gt;cll_lS_OI \u0026gt;8\"ffll'Lwpd Page 8 of 8 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 1192219941 Wll.LIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M . EI SEMAN, JR . . P. A . JOE O BELL . P. A . JAMES A BUTTRY , P. A . - EOERICK S . URSERY , P. A . CARE . DAVIS . JR . . P. A . M ES C . ClARK , JR. P. A . ,HO MA$ P. LEGGETT , P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSO N, P. A\". PAUi. B BEN HAM 111 , P. A . LARRY W BURKS , PA. A WYCKLIFF NISBET , JR, P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARR I S, P. A . J PHIi.LiP MALCOM . P.A JAMES M SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M SAXTON . P. A . J SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 , P. A . DO NALD H. BACON , P. A . WILllAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E COPLI N, P.A RICHARDO TAYLOR. P.A JOS EPH 8 HURST . J R. , P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY . PA Ci, F41STOPHER HEL LER . PA LAURA HENSI.EY SMITH . PA ROBERT S. SHAFER . P. A . WILLIAM M GRI FFIN 111 , P. A . MI CHAEi. S. MOORE , P. A . QlANE S. MACKEY . P. A . WALTER M EBEL 111, PA . KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WA00Ell. JR . PA see n J l ,),NCASTER , p A M GAYLE CORLEY . PA . ROBEAT 8 BEACH , JR . P.A J LEE 9ROWN . PA ,i.:.. ME S C BAKER . JR PA H.:.RRY A llCHT , P.A FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNE YS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO. 501 -376 -2147 June 5, 2000 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock , AR 72201 Re: Magnet Schools Memorandum of Understanding Dear Tim: SCOTT H. TUCKER, P. A. GUY Al TON WADE . P. A . PRICE C. GARONER. P. A. TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P. A . JOHN C. FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON . P. A. GREGORY O. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX , P. A . FRANC. HICKMAN , P. A . BETTY J. DEMORY. P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P. A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT OANIEL l. HERRINGTON IC. COLEMAN WESTBROOK , J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A , KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNSll 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY WILLIAM l. PAT TO N , JR . H. T . LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . Wlllf(lll'S OIIIUCT NO. 150 11 370 - 1506 I have enclosed what I hope to be a final draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Magnet Schools. draft incorporates your proposed \"insert A.\" Please let me of a This know whether this draft meets with your client's approval. CJH/bk Encl osure ... EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the \"Settlement Agreement\") between the Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas, acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs, Booker, Mann and Parkview); and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State's magnet funding obligation so that the State is required to provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4 ,065 seats; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4,065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reorganized its schools into a new configuration which includes middle schools; and WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court's approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court, in which it asserts that the State's magnet school funding obligations are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its share of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolve their differences concerning the effect of LRSD' s restructuring on the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools. THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation . ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at 5 of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD's and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended, as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE's ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. Executed this __ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: ______________ _ Tim Gauger, Its Attorney LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Christopher Heller 2  AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 6th day of February, 1999 between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCT A\"), which is represented in this case by Knight, previously agreed that the amount of the teacher pay increase for the 1998-99 school year would be related to the amount of damages recovered by LRSD from the State of Arkansas on its teacher retirement and health insurance claims; and WHEREAS, LRSD, Knight and the other Parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation case are expected to agree to a settlement of LRSD' s teacher retirement and health insurance claims which will result in an award to LRSD of an amount less than the full amount of its claims, which agreement and result is material to the validity of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That Knight agrees that LRSD teachers shall receive a 4.25% base pay increase for the 1998-99 school year and that this Agreement supersedes and replaces the following two provisions of the original agreement between LRSD and its teachers with regard to an increase in base pay for the 1998-99 school year: First, the language concerning distribution of a remedy in excess of LRSD's actual cost for teacher retirement and health insurance (paragraph 4 of the original Agreement); and second, the 4.5% base pay provision. 2. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, EXHIBIT i 5 .f - - - - -- ' 3. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 6th day of February, 1999. Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight Intervenors AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same ..  EXHIBIT / i 0 a: - monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and I 0% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall be regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 --------- I 0. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. st~eJones A)~ Attorney for NLRSD 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Trus Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 911t day of February, 1999, by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and PCSSD disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; WHEREAS, the district court's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement will likely result in a substantial payment by LRSD to PCSSD; WHEREAS, PCSSD may pursue damages from the State of Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's change from the Act 34 - funding system to the Act 917 funding system, pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That this Agreement constitutes consideration, in part, for the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 2. That LRSD's liability to PCSSD under the district court 's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement shall be capped at $450,000.00 for the 1998-99 school year and that neither district's liability to the other will exceed $400,000.00 per year for all subsequent years that the Pooling Agreement is in effect; 3. That LRSD shall receive 30% of PCSSD's damages recovered from the State of - Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's EXHIBIT 7 - change from the Act 34 funding system to the Act 91 7 funding system pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998. 4. However, in no event shall PCSSD's damages paid to LRSD pursuant to Paragraph 4 above exceed that amount of LRSD's loss in teacher retirement and health insurance damages resulting from the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas ' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 5. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, 6. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 9th day of February, 1999. 2 I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I HU18CHll N. F\"tOAT Ct82Zlt WILLIAM N. SUTTON. P.A . JAMES 1lf . MOOIIE IYaON M . US(MAN. Jfl . ,.A. JO( O. 8(LL. r . A . JOHN C. (CHOLS. r . A . JAM[S A . IUTTPtY. ,. . A . Ffl(OUUCI . UJHUIY. , .A. OSCAa ( . DAVIS. JII .  f'.A. JAM(S C . ClAtlf; . Jfl . , . A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN O[W(Y WATSON. P. A. PAUL a. l(NHAM Ill . P.A . LAJUIY W . IUfllS . P . A . A . WYCltllFF NISl(T, Jlll., r . A. JAMES EDWAlliO HAIIIIIS , P. A.. J . ,HILUP MALCOM, r .A. JAM[I M . ltMrSON, P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P .A. J . IHlrHUID flUIS(ll IU, P . A . OONALO H. IACON, P . A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT[II, r . A. IAIIIIY ( , COPLIN, P\".A. IIICHAJIO D. TAYLOII, , . A. JOS[P'H I. HUtllT, Jll ,, P.A. [UZAIETH flOll(N MUIUIAY, P .A . CHIIISTOPH(II HU. LUI , P .A. LAU\"A HENSLEY SMITH , l\" . A. ltOl(IIT S . SHAF[II, P.A. WILi.i.AM M . GJUFFfN Ill. , . A . MICHA(l S . MOOft(, ,. . A. DIAN( S . MA.Cl[Y , , . A . WALT(ft M . (au Ill , .. . ... . l(VIN 4 . CIIASS , P' . A. WtlllAM A . WADO(Ll, Jft . , r .A . John W. Walker FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLA!tK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCIC, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 June 10, 1998 VIA FAX and HAND DELIVERY JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Attorney's Fee Settlement Dear John: SCOfT J . LANCASH  . \" \"  M . OAYl( COIIIUY. r .A oauu I . l(ACH. Jlt . . ,  . J . U( ... OWN , f' . A. JAM(S C . 1141(11. J . P' . A HARRY A . UGHT . , .A . SCOTT N. lUCC(III . r . A . .JOHN ClA'flON \"ANDOll'\" P'  CUT Al TON WAO(. P .   f'l1UC( C . CA110Nl . ,.  TONIA,. JON(S. ,. A . DAVID 0. WUSON. P . A . J(FFlll('f H . MOOU. r  0AYID M . GIIAJ. P . A . CAllllA GUNN(lS S,-AINHOUfl. ,. A .IOHH C. IF(NOl(T . J . . PA . II. CMllll  TOl\"N(III LAWSON Cll(GO\"'f 0. fA'flO\" TONY L. WILCOX FIIAN C. NIClMAN l(TT'f J . 0(W0fl'f  .... A .. A J . ...... o l 'fNOA W. JONNSON JAM($ W . SMITH CllFFOO W . l'lUNl( ff OAHtll l. M(flllllNC:fON ALLISON .J . COIUtW(LL 1000  cu (LUN lot . OW(NS H(l(N( N . ATOUI .JASON I . N(NDA(N SUSANN. CHILDUIS IIIIUC[ a . TIOWUl o, covu WllLIAM J . SMITH a . S . CLAIU WILLIAM L. HT WILLIAM l. ,-AT TON. J H . 1' . lAllll[UR( . , . A . 16011 370 I 601 I will have delivered to you today a check from the Little Rock School District in the amount of $35,000.00 for attorney's fees in the school desegregation case. We have now paid you $100,000.00 based upon our expectation that we will be able to reach a complete agreement concerning past and future fees and costs in the desegregation case. In accordance with our telephone conversation today, we now have such an agreement subject to the approval of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. I expect the Board of Directors to approve our agreement at its June meeting. LRSD will make the following payments for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31, 1998. U or fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1,1,a---, 1998. - The payments described in this letter will constitute full anc complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please sign this letter l:iCI ::z: 00 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; Ill 1 It I I I I I I ,I I I I I - It I I John w. Walker June 10, 1998 Page 2 to indicate your acceptance of these terms and your willingness to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement containing these terms. Thank you for your cooperation. I will keep you advised of the progress toward approval of this agreement by the LRSD Board of Directors. The Joshua Intervenors agree to the settlement terms set forth in this letter. rney A PROF\"\":.SSIO~Al. CORPORATI0:-1 :\\TTOR..'-'EYS\"AT L~W 120J '\\J:.'CRTI;EN aANlC Bl,'U..OL'-:G LITi1..E Rea:. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 314-7100 -:-a.E:c::rl' CX'IJ n~l\u0026amp;ll :!ay 31, 1989 ~e: ~ittle ~eek School Dist=ict vs. Pulaski C~unty S?ecial School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 John W. Walker, Escr. Christopher Heller; Esq. Ste?hen W. Jones, Esq. M. Sa~uel Jones, Esq. ~ic~ard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In_ accorc.ance wi t:1 III.A. o:f the ?ulas}~i County Deseq:::-ega tion Settlenent .::..greement c-f .Ma::::-ch, l 9 8 9, we are enclosing an Arkansas DeDartment of Education ?12.n fer ~c~i toring i!uplementation of compensc.to~y educ2. t.ic:1 ~n t.he ~tree school c.istricts. The settleme!\"lt 2gree;:1e!lt does not !)rov:i.Ce :\"c::- :::..lir:c; . or -:ve\" submission of ~his document ~o the Cou::::-t a~ -;:::.:s time. :-:cwever, we are senc.ing copies to both Judge ;,oocs and Xr. ~cC~tcheon so that thev mav be aware that this re~ui=enent of t~e settlement acree~e~t has been met. We antici?ate that the enclosed olan ma'v be .nodified afte:::- :::-eceivinc .cur com.':lents 2.nc after-we learn more about the monitoring r~le ~hat will be untertaken by Eugene Reville. :rW.V:-im :Snclosure cc: The Honorable Hen=y ~ccts Sincerely yours, ALLEN !..A\\: FIF.N ~iJw_(JJJ__ H. William ,AJ,,len , ', The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. ~c~: Dr. Ru~~ Ste~le Sam Sratton, ~sa . Sharon St=ee~~, -~3~. Esa. .; 1 ~ lC EXHIBIT l l  One of the Att One for NLRSD WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS By ~~ -- M. Samuel Jones One of the Attorneys _for PCSSD ROACHELL By tJJ -=p-a--'-u-::1:--:~'-=-::-~-~------ 0ne of Knight the Attorneys for the Intervenors e - i\\RlQ.NS;l.S DEPJ..R.TMDIT OF EDUO..TIOH PULASKI COUNT'! DESZGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of ~ducation (ADE), to monitor the irople_~entation of compensatory education programs by t:he school districts in Pulaski Co~nty. The ADE defines comoensatocy educatiQ~_p.J:.agm~ as those o~qg;:_ams wnich are directed at .La,provina the ac2de:nj c r:e,..-=or:;;12:nce -0f-.bl2.ck s..t:udents whose acaaern.ic achievement bas been adversely affected  discriminatorv practices w  D...J:h.e school. Tb.e___state comoensato effects of the programs shouia:'oe it~es in eaucationa Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the ~rimary area 'for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an eauitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal a~countability to the tax payers of Arkansas. 1:-lonitoring responsibilities for ~esegregation effectiveness by necessity must permeate all elemen~s of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial progr~s- Therefore, it shall ~e the goal of the ~.DE to ?rovide extensive monitoring and eval\\!acion oi the Agreement. The primary focus of the orocess shall be a continuous assessment 0 the remedial effectiveness of ~rcgr~~s supported partially or f~lly by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School Districc vs. ?ulaski Countv Soeci2.l School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and serv~ces receiving special funding include: 1. ~pe~satory ~cucatio::i)) 2. Magnet Schools ~ 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits ~he state to: l. Direct funui~g to the districts (~ithin the limits provided in ~he Agreement) 2. Principles o~ desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement dispari~ies l ------ ------------------~ b. d. Standacdi:ed test yalidation R~~i~l bala~~e ir. ~pecial programs Minority !'ec:::-u.it:nenc a.nci employ;;ie!1t 3. Site selection c=lceria for school constructio~ or ~xpansion 4. Staff dcvelopme~c release days fer ~he t.~ree districts through _l990-l991 5. -r-... ~ni:-.y million dollars loan to Litt.le ~cc~: School Districc .:.o d~velo? programs for remediacing .a~~ievement disparities and or ~t~er programs and initiacives which facilitate desegregat.ion 6. Selection oi an a~:::-eed standardized test t.o satisfy the loan forgiveness of t.~e ~grcement ..,. .. 3. The ADE shall ~r~vicc 4egular w~it.t.~n ~cn~t.ori~g reporcs t~ t.hc ~art.ies anc tje court. Monitoring by t~e st.ac?. shall be i.idependenc of t.hat of the other parties. As a .last resor~, P.DE may petition the cou~t for modifications or changes in such programs ~eing implemenr.ed ~y ~he districts lbut ~ot fvr ~ r?.6uction in the agr~ed level of stata funding). 4. Any recommc:nca.:ic~s mci.,-:e  oy l\u0026gt;.DE shall :1oc ::or.n t.he basis of ~ny ~ccitior.~l f~nc.ing responsi~il:-::i2s 0f .:h~ _state. Jl.lthongh, i:'!.e .!..DC: rnoni::.;):!\":.:,g shall be inc..~?e?;dc:1c :::)= .::iat of t':le other par~ies, the dis~=:.c~s are advised to cs.:ablish an internal monitoring pla=-i. ~he ;:nr;-ose sha.ll be to det.e=mine anc. document:. that: \\. Th~ desegrega.:ion plan ~as, or is ce~~; implemented on a timely b.;sis, 2. Inequities do no.: exisc and/or do n~r recur; and 3. J\u0026gt;.11 ~tuden.:s a-:e afforc.ed an equi-::a::,le educa-=.ion. 2 L.. !.;CN 1 TOiUHG ~he monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitaticns, review ~ plans, review of statistical and administrative data as we11  as percep~ual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monito_ring ' isits should provide evidence that the school $lte is representative of the pl~ralistic nature of the Air,erican Society. Monitoring tcc:.ms shall be selected by the Director, Arkansas Department 0 Education (]illE), General Division. Tbe teams shall include ;h.DE personnel and may include others as designa-c.ed by the Director. Monitoring visits shall be contl~cted acco~a~ng to a scnedule ~stablishcd by -che i\\DE. The mor1i taring process shall include anno11nced and unannounced visits. Monitors sholl record ~vents and conditions during sit~ visits. Monitors shall observe and report f ind.ings only.  E:ach district shall include in the six-year plan and unxwal school improvement: plans appropriate objectives to c1chieve .;,.:impliance with each court orde:r rela.ted to the Agrcem\u0026lt;::nt.. The ADshall monitor the  si:;;:-vec:1.r olans and :i.nnua.i school improvement pLrns t0 de:t~r~ine progress towa!:d cchieving educational equi tY. District plans should prov-ide evid.ence of ~ompliacce ~ith court aiders and a process to ascertain progress. 'The AD'E shall identify relevant daca necessary to formulc::.te conclusions and recommendations. ~ata should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and requlaticns are developed and implemented to facilitate de$egrega,:ion. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achieve~ent disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence ~hat student assignments to schools, clc::.sses and prc:\u0026gt;grams at each organi:::at:ional level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the ~greement are used to facilitate the desegregation process . . 5. Evidenc~ that travel time to and =~cm schools is ~ot disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black scudents transportea =or desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe.~entage of non-black students transported for desegreg~tion. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the ne-=ds of a diverse student pop11lation . 7. Evidence of intern~l procedures for ensuring thr-t materials for appraising or counseling s~udents are non-discriminatoty. 8. Evidenc~ that cur~icular content ~na'instructio~al strategies arc utilized to meet: the diverse ne2ds of the student population serv~a. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and :i~signed in a 1nanner to meet ~he goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that nroce~u~es related to cxtracurricula and ;::o,:urricula 3.ccivit.ies are develooed and imolemented t.o identify and eli~inate =onditions.that resuit ir. participation th~t is dispr.oportionate to the studen~ population. 11. Evidence of aiverse representation on appointed dist.r.i.ct\\.Jic.e nnd school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to .ensure that oaicnt attendance at :.;chool function:~ 1::; not ,11.::proporti~nate t\".o the student population.  l). EJiden,::e of- succ~s:; relate:! to Hajority to Minor:..;:y ~-~a.tts!ars . ;_ 11. Evidence that magnet: schools are an eifective interdis~rict remed.t fo~ racial balance. The collection of data shall include ~t le~st the following: A. Enrol~nent/Attendance 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional prog 1:a.ms. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, .:ransported, nontransporced and instructional program fo~ each magnet scnool. ) . Numbe . .r. of non promotes by race, gender, grace, sch.ool, ::eacher, transported. and. n0nt.ranspor~ed.. B. Test Data Arr:ans;:..s Ninirr.um Performance Tesc results by race, gender, grade, school and :;ocioeconomic status {SES). N:umber of eighth graders failing to axcain 1nast.ery after the first, second and third ad.ministration of test. by race, gend~r, SES and school. Nwnbe= 0 eighth graders th2. t: are non promotes f _or failir.g ;:o at.tain mastery aft.er thi:::-d adrni:1istration of test ~y race, gender, SES and schoql. 14. Metr0politan ~chievement Test - 6th Editiun or other . national normed tests ~s may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race , gender~ grade, school, s~s and teacher. ~S .. ~umber of llth and 12th graders b~ race, gender, ~chool ~na guidance counselor who t~ke the PSAT, S~T or ACT. C:. St:aft , 1. Number of Full TimP- Equivalent lF.T.E.) classroom t1:acl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experien~e. 2. Number of ?.T.E. school-based aaminiscrators by job category, r2.ce, gender1 school, ye2.rs oi experience. 3. Nun\\b~r of F.T.E. counselors by race, g~nder, school, years ct CX?erience.  5 - -'\\ . 5_ 6 . 7 . 8. Numher of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E- librarians oy race, gender, school, years of experience. Numb~r of F.T.E. department heads by race , . gender, school, yea.rs of experience. Nt1mber of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience_ N'..llnber of =.T . E. cent~al offic~ positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. D- Policy and Program Infonnation 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities_ 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings ~nd special state funded programs including: ::'I.. Ma.gnet Schools h. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 0  - ~   M - - -  3. Student assignment policies, rules ~nd regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Libr~~Y Usage g_ Student Records S.  Copies of current negotiated agreements with all e~ployee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by .funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 6 .. 2. Transportat:i on cost: and funding sour,ce. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory ~ducacion Program cost 5. Magnet school cost: F. Student Discipline 1. ..liW.IlP_er of discipl~D~ .. r .ef err.als _ by __ !,\u0026gt;chool and teacher repbri~d by ra~i.- gender, grade, subject and  teachers' ye:;.rs cf experience; .. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, ~ s_~ces, district ... c:3,I).Q. _ building ~rship, speclal s~ate funded programs and educational equity summarizeci.b~ace, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. ii. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade lev~l, by sending and receiving district. /' ~alysis of data _shall be __ conduct.ed by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated. by the ADE director, Additional data may be required of the c.istricts, a$ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring repor-.s. A schedule . for submitting the data shall be established by the Jl..DE - Si!1ce the moni torir1g is ~assi ,:e anci. e~~ompassir:.g, the A.DC: shall establishmonitoring priorities as. follows: 1. Programs and se~vices supported by special state. desegregation funding incluqing. compensatory educa~ion, magnet schools, majcri ty to minority transfers and related.transpor-.ation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation icient~fied as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 -. / ;t,onitoring activities shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistanc~ Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a Learn of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one team member will be an education professional from the }I.DE. The Equity Assistance Center may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring actiJi ties. P.EPORTING The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the . Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on February 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or - nearest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs end services receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. P11laski Countv Special School Dis~rict 1 et al . , No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financi2.l and program information. * The _ADE Desegregation \u0026gt;.ssistance Te~n s~all provide ~ech~i~al . assistance atid suzoort as necessary to implement monitoring ana ..,reporting respor_isibili ties. Current team members are: Administration Student Services Emma Bass Brenda l1a.tthews Sterling Ingram ~1argie Po.vell Robert Shaver Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Blizabeth Gaston Incentive Schools Carolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Early Childhood TBA curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Special Education Diane Sydoriak Benny Abraham Staff Develoomcnt c-aylc T2al Jackie Dec.man .:.taff 1'.t.tornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean i-lcEnt:.ire - - --- - -- Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. The districts have agreed not to hire teachers under contract with another district from one month before the start of a school year through the end of the school year unless the position at the hiring district is considered a promotion. EXHIBIT /j Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCT A regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. The LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association have agreed that a teaching position that becomes vacant after the first student-contact day will be filled with an intern teacher whose teaching contract will not be renewed at the end of the school year. At that time, the position will be listed as vacant and filled consistent with District policy and the PN Agreement. The intern teacher may apply for the position, but he or she is not entitled to any preference in hiring. -.. EXHIBIT 1 i IC \\5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED APR . -2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. It has reviewed the proposed submission of the LRSD and believes the LRSD has adequately described those items that are responsive to the Court's March1, 2002, Order. 2. Item 3 of the LRSD response is a copy of its agreement with the State. The PCSSD wishes to note that the only parties to this agreement are the State and LRSD. PCSSD was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement, is not a party to it and does not believe the agreement has any legal effect upon the PCSSD. Further, the PCSSD does not believe that said agreement could operate to affect or diminish or curtail in any manner those sums and payments which the State is obligated to pay to or on behalf of the PCSSD for the desegregation and other financial programs described within it. 327291-v1 3. Finally, a discrete section of the May 1988 \"Joshua Agreement\" retains vitality. It addresses student balance goals in the PCSSD and is referred to in each of the ODM monitoring reports concerning racial balance. The operative language is quoted by the Court of Appeals as follows: \"However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1378, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990). 327291-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~..-=--:--f-..;..:_-:-:-:---:::-::~-:-:--+----ci a I 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 1, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 327291-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., I ntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR .- 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NLRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 In its Order of March 1, 2002, the Court directed the parties to identify and submit copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case. The Little Rock School District has shared its list of agreements as contained in the LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as required by Order filed March 1, 2002, with the NLRSD. The NLRSD agrees that the agreements listed by the LRSD are in fact agreements among some or all of the parties. The NLRSD is not aware of any additional agreements. Therefore, the NLRSD adopts the Notice of Filing Agreements as its own. However, the NLRSD notes that it was not a party to Item #3, Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: Unitary Status, Sale of Bond and $20 million loan. Therefore, while the NLRSD agrees that this Agreement exists, it reserves its right to object to the legitimacy and/or scope of that Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P. A. 425 W. Capitol 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Si:WA)~ Stephen W. Jqnes (No. 78-083) I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons via U. S. Mail on this 1st day of April, 2002. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Bank of America Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 _......, ~\u0026lt;GW~ ephen W. Jones // RECEIVED APR - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING p= ;; ~ '''-=\"' I\"\"'' 1;= J l1 k= 4 1 a ~--=bl-.II U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARMl'1SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl~SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. :rv.tRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. _l,l\\MES W. McCORMACK CL:: :-;: .r- ' -,' --------~ PLAINTIB'F c.: - -~ DEFENDANTS JNTER VENO RS JNTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1. 2002 On March 1, 2002, the Court required the parties to identify any agreements, formal or informal, that existed between the parties. Joshua responds as follows: 1. Joshua Intervenors would be involved in monitoring activities involving plan implementation regarding the three districts. The Districts agreed to cooperate and otherwise facilitate Joshua monitoring. 2. Joshua was to be involved in Little Rock and Pulaski County with the selection of principals for certain schools; devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and were to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to either of the school boards for final action. 3. The parties were to cooperate in identifying programs, policies, and procedures which actually either worked or did not work to achieve expected goals of the settlement agreements and, where necessary, to either build upon such programs or to discard them and replace them with programs which had greater probability of success. 4. The districts were to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The State Department of Education, though relieved as a party, was expected to comply with the requirements of the Allen letter. The State Department was also expected not to forgive the Little Rock School District loan of 20 million dollars without the remediation goals set forth in the Consent Decree having been achieved. 6. There was a scholarship commitment imposed upon Little Rock schools, formerly - identified as Incentive Schools, which guaranteed every student of those schools who graduated from a Little Rock high school with a \"C\" average college tuition. 7. The State Department ofEducation and the parties were required to identify legislation and other state actions which had discriminatory impact upon black students. The State of Arkansas agreed to discontinue and to prevent continuation of those practices. 8. The agreement entered into between the Pulaski County School District and the Joshua Intervenors known as the Joshua Agreement. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors had hoped to continue their discussions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in seeking to identify other possible agreements but due to the absence of ODM Moniror, :Wlrs. Ann S. Marshall, we are unable to have that input before the filing deadline. Joshua, therefore, requests leave of court to supplement the foregoing understandings after Mrs. Marshall returns to her office. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing filing h counsel of record via United States mail on this 1st day of Ap  , 20 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN W,~~~1, c;_TT COURT \" ARl\u0026lt;~ NSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 3 Z002 , ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * JAMES Vi   fi , v. /Vi c 1...~li ACK, CLERK Qv , _ ,~ DEP.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR -5 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER The Joshua Intervenors' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status is GRANTED. Responses to the LRSD motion are due on or bef;:;ursday, April 18, 2002. DATED thid _ _ day of April, 2002. TATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~ 11;~ A~~/0 79(a) FRCP 589 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL v1 (),At:u l 1t i. f/4_ RECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to the Joshua Intervenors' Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002 states: 1. The LRSD admits that it contemplated that Joshua would monitoring the LRSD's implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). The LRSD also admits that it agreed to \"cooperate or otherwise facilitate\" Joshua monitoring to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 8.2 and 8.3 and with the agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 regarding past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring, attached as Exhibit 8 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Joshua's April 1, 2002 filing. 2. The LRSD denies that it agreed that Joshua was to be involved in the selection of principals for certain schools; the devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and was to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. 3. The LRSD admits that it agreed to \"cooperate\" with Joshua in identifying programs, policies and procedures which worked or did not work to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 2.7.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 4. The LRSD denies that it agreed to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The LRSD admits that the \"Allen letter\" represents an agreement among all the parties to this case. See Exhibit 11 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. The LRSD denies that there was an agreement not to forgive the $20 million loan to the LRSD from the State pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, it was not contemplated at the time the 1989 Settlement Agreement was negotiated that the LRSD would ever have to repay the $20 million loan from the State. 6. The LRSD admits that it agreed to provide scholarships to the extent consistent with-Revised Plan 5.8. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 6 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 7. The LRSD admits that the 1989 Settlement Agreement required the State to \"research and list\" laws that impede desegregation and obligated other parties to assist the State 2 in identifying existing or proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. See 1989 Settlement Agreement,  IILD. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 7 ofJoshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 8. The LRSD takes no position with regard to the \"Joshua Agreement\" identified in Paragraph 8 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:------,4-'li\"L,C--l_.__;_i~~~~~':L...:......- 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 17, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Offi~e of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 9NIHOllNOW NOllY93H93S3a ~o 3~1:1:fO ZOOZ 6 1 ~d\\f RECEIVED APR 1 9 2002 OFACEOF FILED U.S. DISTRICT GOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS . APR 1 8 2002  a3Al303t:t DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~ ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. :tvIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Interveno~, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker; -P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. In accordance with the Court's orders ofJanuary 25, 2002 and February 12, 2002, Joshua and the LRSD have engaged in settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status. The parties agree that additional time is needed to continue these discussions. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. 3. Neither party will be prejudiced by the court granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including May 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) \\! , '' l ', , ~, By~d-    / . (, JJo n W. Walk.e r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 1 t 11 day of April ,, 002.  Jk,_\u0026lt;j( i V\"' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its Response to those paragraphs of Joshua's filing which relate to it state: 1. Admits that it knew that Joshua would seek to engage in monitoring activities, but denies that Joshua has engaged in appropriate monitoring activities. 2. Denies that Joshua was to be involved with the selection of principals, denies that Joshua was to be involved in administrative plans, but acknowledges that Joshua has a role to play as respecting programs, policies and procedures as set forth in Plan 2000. 3. Admits that a role for Joshua is set forth in Plan 2000 regarding programs, policies and procedures regarding educational achievement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 as phrased, but acknowledges that Joshua is enterprising in its efforts to obtain information from the PCSSD. 5. 333093-v1 Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 6. Admits that a portion of the Joshua Agreement retains vitality as respects student assignment in the PCSSD. 7. Denies the remaining allegations contained in Joshua's submission. 333093-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 --- -- c--::J:-  ~ .,,.. r,, By J) I --\u0026lt; / ;  \\'- ) '-----' M. Samuel Jones Ill (76,,060) Attorneys for Pulaski-e\"ounty Special School Distr-ict ......._ ___ -- -.. - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 25, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 333093-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette 0. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 M. Samuel Jones Ill (___) J . 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC-EIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ~tttizit~~~;tA~~wltgt~~S'.~~g1iiil~il.~if~r~1,~1111,~,~-ftdl~-t~'aHhe 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1723"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1743"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["14 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Education- just discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to \"provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future.\" In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for \"readiness,\" the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This \"Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District\" builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001 , the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01 . Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from , but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test-not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to nonblack student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation . Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks' difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on \"the improvement of the academic achievement of African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined-the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on \"findings\" or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. The District's statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level. Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewed-especially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineguality, which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the program's quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each school's results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the  determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 1-28-020120 4 Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writer's ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which \"readiness\" standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plan's design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section Vis a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. \"PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan,\" \"Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01,\" and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the District's 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed from the same research base on early literacy; they differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31 ). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.      Shared reading . Guided reading . Familiar reading . Modeled writing or shared writing . Interactive writing . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan: Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Se_ction 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2. 7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize \"designed to improve ... the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" rather than to \"remediate\" that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools' School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following: Teachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of wellintentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid that \"there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4.\" Therefore, as the child continues to experience \"failure and defeat,\" he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I she states that \"supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years\" (326). She concludes: Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students' self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures frequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. .. . instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01 .) The second section from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of learning-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and grov.1h of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements--the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The third section (5.2 .1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's program. 'A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned . A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cuniculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the District's general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card.     Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance Report in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000 . An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous\"' (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is summary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"readiness to read.\" (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 1-28-020130 14 he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The child's performance is scored by counting the child's representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skillsprimarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of \"readiness\" for success at the next grade level. Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. \"Proficient\" is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading \"levels\" of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define \"proficient\" performance. To gauge which \"level\" is equivalent to how Arkansas defines \"proficiency,\" the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sett ing is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficultv. The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several states and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing \"proficiency levels\" developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that \"On Grade Level\" is defined by a kindergarten student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. The State of Ohio defined \"Success Indicators\" for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy:  At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words.  By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization.  By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as \"substantially deficient.\" Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress-similar to the District's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition of \"proficiency\" that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination, District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term \"Readiness\" to define the desired performance. When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004, then the staff can do some statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, \"the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers' ongoing observations of student progress over time within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from various parts of the United States and Canada participated. (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA .. The findings were that both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct validity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read\" (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instruction-for the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not reliable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks ... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing\" (20). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test. The lower correlation values of the  Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test. Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each child's answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students' performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The staff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teaching-one approach fits all-the opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, AP A, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole from year to year. With the AL Ts, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports cannot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the AL Ts, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring learning-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council, (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the report's recommendations for early learners:       Prekindergarten: Preschool programs .. . should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, \"sight\" recognition of frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge 1-28-020142 26    in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1445","title":"Report: ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1445"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1026","title":"\"Center for Research in Educational Policy's Response to RFQ #23-010,\" The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Center for Research in Educational Policy's Response to RFQ #23-010,\" The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"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/1026"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1043","title":"External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas"],"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/1043"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"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\nMemorandums related to \"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation\"\" and \"\"Middle School Transition Program Evaluation.\"\" Personal vitas for Theresa Akey and William P. Moore.\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMd:l!c: 5:/4col ll'cJnsffe,IJh /Jrd?l'i:2#7 Educo/c.tJh TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools FEB 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: ~~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Middle School Transition Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs requ ired by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Middle School Transition Program. The District made the transition to middle schools in fall 1999. One of the four \"draft\" program evaluations presented to the Board of Education in summer 2000 was the one on the Middle School Transition for school year 1999-2000. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The District took no steps as a result of the 1999-2000 program evaluation, since, as is noted in the document, the data gathered that year were considered to be baseline data, against which to evaluate progress in the future. That statement does not mean that no changes in the middle schools have occurred since 1999-2000. In addition to numerous individual school level changes, the following significant District-led changes have occurred:  Full phase-in of new mathematics curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Full phase-in of new science curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Refinement of implementation of the new middle school Reading/Writing Workshop program (curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments)\n Implementation of new curriculum for Research and Writing Pre-AP at grades 6-8\n New writing curriculum implemented in 2002-2003.  Beginning of phase-in of new social studies curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two  New magnet programs implemented in fall 2001 at Cloverdale Middle School and Mabelvale Middle School\n Full implementation of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant project, focused almost exclusively at the middle school level, providing a range of comprehensive programs and services to improve learning climate and student achievement\n Increased enrollment in grades 6-8 Pre-AP courses in the core areas\n Increased enrollment in Algebra I in grades 7-8\n Administration of new Benchmark examinations in grade 6\n Involvement of four middle schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Henderson, and Southwest) in Successful Transitions and Making Middle Grades Work, as developed by the Southern Regional Education Board\n Strengthening of the middle school fine arts programs\n Implementation of Act 1748, requiring physical activity at each grade level, K-9\n Implementation of Fred Jones' classroom management strategies. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Middle School Transition program evaluation to the firm, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. The resumes of Dr. Moore and his associate, Dr. Theresa Akey, are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD staff participated in the evaluation: Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Mona Briggs, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation Principals of the eight middle schools, who participated in the administration of assessments and who completed surveys and administered student surveys Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation All grade 7 teachers who administered the SAT-9\nand all grade 8 teachers who administered the Benchmarks\nAll grades 6-8 teachers who completed surveys and/or who administered student surveys I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Three Impact on African-American Student Achievement The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question since the student performance data available for the study were \"baseline, and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Middle School Transition program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ ~ ~ \"\" \"\"- \"\" - - ~    .a. T. AJceY f l uuw, v .. - . -- RFQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Toeresa J,/\n.ey bas extensive experience in the areas of evaluation, research and assessment. She earned her doctorate in educationil psychology, research and statistics from the UniversitY of](ansas in 1995 and her master's in comrnunitY and school counseling from Delta Staie University in !990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, including evaluation of grants, staff development traming, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organiza!ions in the areas of alcohol and drug abuse, comrnunitY counseling, and other services in both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director of the Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where sbe co-anthored grants, conducted research, and coordinated research and evaluation activities for a large research center focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. J,/\n.ey bas extensive background in educationil assessment. research, evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assistant professor in the area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for two years, and roost recently in the role of director of educationil research. evaluation, and assessment in a ](ansas City area school district for the last four years. 38 ~   '  '-   I -..       J. T. A~ (Y01J1h Policy Research Group, inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Respon.se ojYowh Policy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.D. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 62S-1927 (F) tak~rg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional development and evaluation, instructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE o Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical modeling, and qualitative design and analysis. o Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. o Program evaluation in educational and community settings o Curriculum development in K-12 and higher education settings o Professional development in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment development, and program evaluation o Grant and proposal writing o Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research with emphases in developmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (1991). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, Psychology and sociology 39 ,     '  ''  ' - II       T. Akev (Yowh Policy Research Group. inc.) 3 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, bu\n. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management D Indiana Teaching ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards.  YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of insuuctional survey and observation data, including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted ti.me-series analyses   Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information  Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Park Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment D Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities. D Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\nD Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department D Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-cm.bedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and  eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and evaluation guidelines . D Development and implementation of district-wide: program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state comminees related to K-U assessment and evaluation issues. D Led applied and theoretical research projectS to address pressing educational issues relevant to local policy and instructional practice. D Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder and Owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas Cir-y, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management sysrem for reporting assessment information to teachers and adminiscrarnrs  D Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied tO state standards and benchmarks  ::J Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 I t   ' ' '          t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc D Educational consultant to Missouri school disrrictS- using data to make insuuctional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districts to do uaining and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Suategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of insuuctional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). D Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development o Developed insuuments to measure consuucts of psychological empowerment D Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability  D Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability  D Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner D Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities, University of Kansas. D Research and statistics consultant. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas D Family support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation D Insuuctional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational 'Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Oanuary 2000 to present). Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Standards-Based Assessment Auburn University, Auburn, AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, multivariate statistics, and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Insuuctor, Basic educational statistics  41 I '    '           T. Akev (fowh Policy Research Group, Jnc.) ) RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational statistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools ( 1990-1991 ), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Behavioral Intervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, .!J\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. /\\key, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant# H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Aley, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context: .Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Aies, N.M., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1oumal. 25(1), 49-71  /\\key, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvchological Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. M. (1997). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green S.B., Salkind, .J., \u0026amp; /\\key, T.M. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., .AJzey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effecrs of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, 1(2) . 42 t t            J,.. T. Akey (fouih Policy Research Group, Jru:.) 6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUih Policy Research Group, In!:. Akey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: Implications for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program- Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N .J., \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Dara~ 1st Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R., \u0026amp; Barber, P. A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family suppon setting. In G. Singer, L E. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support Introduction to oublic-orivate oarmershios. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o, not to hdpc A ,n,dy of group ,nd in\u0026lt;fi,idu,l wriabks in , monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Akey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Akey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual ITeacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring Researchl. New York: MacMillan. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS A.ND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to the Regional Professional Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J., Eick, C., and Akey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2\u0026amp;-30, 2000  Akey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, J. (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999  Ares, N. \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Undersranding the effecrs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normality and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as part of a ,ymposi= (also chai, wd o,g,niw of session) Madding Non-norm,\\ Dau fo, the annual m~cing of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA., April 12-17, 1998  43 I 9 ~ --~ ~ ~  ~ w l.l!.t ~ - T. Akey (J'owh Policy Research Group, inc.) 7 RFQ23-0 I (}-Response of }'ouch Policy Research Group, inc. Mey, T. M., \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (November, 1997). Conceptual and Belief Changes: Implications of a Sociocultural Approach to Educating Preservice Teachers in Classroom-Based Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting cif the MidSouth Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN, November 12- 14, 1997 Mey, T. M., Marquis, J. G., \u0026amp; Turnbull, H. R. (August, 1997). Effecr.s of Family Support Programs on Parental Empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lmcig, D., \u0026amp; M\u0026lt;y, T. M. (April, 1997) Family Adapucion in f,mili,s wiili Adult Cbild\u0026gt;-en wiili Mcnul Retardation: Impact of Family Suengths and Appraisal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 1~13, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). A Model of Moral Decision-Making: A Srudy of Group and Individual Influences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). The Relationship Between Power and Intercorrelated Dependent Variables in MANOVA. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. (February, 1997). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Moral Dilemma Helping Measure. Papa p,esmt\u0026lt;d at th, ,nnu,I mming of ili, E,,tem Educaciou,I Ros=ch Assnciacion, Hilton Hou!, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Mey, T. M. (1996). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Mey, T. M. (December, 1995). Effecr.s of family support programs on parental empowerment. Workshop presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (Mey), T. M. (August, 1994). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Qune, 1993). Roundtable discussions on family empowerment and family services. Invited round table participant and presenter at the annual-Family Support and Family Empowerment Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS Mey, T.M. (2002). Effecrs of standards-based assessment on insuuctional practices in middle school math teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for school improvement planning and decision-making: Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001  Akey,~- M. (2000). 2000-2001 Disuict Performance Update: Assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Evaluaoon report prepared for Park Hill Scnool Disuict, October 1::, 2000.   J t '  t 'I           ill T. Akey (fouth Policy Research Group, inc.) 8 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUJh Policy Research Group, inc. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insrructional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (2001) Validation of learning expectations for a standards-based curriculum in communication am. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effectiveness of the Class-Within-a-Class Model .. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Evaluation of class rank procedures: Examination of alternate methods. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). EffectS of Block Scheduling on lnsrructional Practices. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001  Akey, T. M. (2000). Title I Evaluation Report Adequate Yearly Progress and Recommendations for Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, December 7, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District Performance Update. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October U, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). EffectS of Block Scheduling on Student Outcomes: Mastery achievement, credits, and test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, April, 2000. Akey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness ofFull-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District. Akey, T. M. (1999). 1998-1999 Disuict Performance Update. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School District, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for Wmdows: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall. PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas YWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I  ~    ~ -  t t         Auburn University T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research .Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 1990-1998 Society for Research In Child D~elopment 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Arinual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSoutb Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 I                  W. P. Moore (Youth !'Otley J(esearcn vruu , ,,,.__ , , RFQ23-01 O--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc Wn.,LIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCT0BE~ 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Parmer with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently be is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Childrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course  Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation\nand held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation srodies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas City's Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Ma.na:,oing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting firm. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowerment program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where be was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation\nwas a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore's research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment -programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Educarion, Educational Assessment, the International Journal of Educational Research, and The American Occupational Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation . 7       t  W. P. Moore (Youth Polic-y Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Poiicy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. OCT0BE~ 2002 Home 114 78 South Wtlder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. 564. 0143 01) 913. 390. 6162 (F) wmoore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Soci.al Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Parmer. Youth Policy Research Group lnc  Kansas City, KS Lecturer. University of Kansas. Lawrence. KS Granc Reviewer. Willi.am. T. Grant Foundation., ew York.. JY Advisory Board, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center. Overland Park.. KS Advisory Board. Community Health Promotion Program. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City. KS 8 t  t t '' ' -' ~,, ,  ~  ii  ..  W. P. Moore (l outh Policy Research Group. mc.1 j RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group. inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Parmer, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a cmpora!e partnership formed by youth and education researchers located ID the Kansas City merropofuan area. The mission of this fum is to engage ID applied research and evaluation studies that will conrnDnte to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to aclrieve long-term developmental success both acaderoicallY and behaviorally. Mucb of the work already complered by YPRG researchers is ID the K-12 education arena. Acting n,anagmg partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Manrurin9- Consu)tan~ Great Plains Research and Evaluation, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy fum focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience- Qverall responsil,ility for managing research and evaluation conrractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants. managed resources and budget, negotiated contraets, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of cla1a collection, analysis, rnssemmation, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services + State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health, Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse + State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins + Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Schools  youth Opportunities unlimited  Coalition for Positive Family Relationships Shawnee Mission East High School, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Shawnee Mission North High School, Grandview High School, Lee's Summit High School Blue Valley High School, Wmnetonka High School, Park Hill School District, Center High School, Hickman Mills Management School II  Telemedicine Research Center, Portland OR.  Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Youth Policy and Research Firm, Philadelphia, PA  Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas  Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation  Johnson County Regional Prevention Center  Kansas City Young Audiences-KCY A  Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas  Child Abuse Prevention Coalition  The Coterie Theatre 9 I  .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t  i   ~ ii8 W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J .: RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Tbrough contactual work awarded by KCY A., we worked with the following clients:  Kansas City Arts Partners  Kansas City Lyric Opera  Kansas City Symphony  Fort Osage School District 1988 Evaluation Consultant. Deparrment of Art Education, Universitl' of](ansas, Lawrence, Kansas- Evaluation and data analysis of survey data examining the impact on participants of the Artist-in-Residence program, an integrated art education approach. 1987-88 Research Consultant. iawrence Unifred School District, Lawrence, ](ansas. Citywide telephone survey of attitudes towards Lawrence Public Schools. Development of sampling procedures, u,strumen1 development and revision, training of telephone interviews and protocol development. Oversee all technical aspects of data collection and analysis for survey oftaXPayers and for survey of district employees. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Management and Staff Positions 1998-2002 Director, Department of Educational Research and Assessroent. Kansas Ciry, Kansas Public Schools, K,nsas City, ](ansas. Cabinet-level position with direct report to superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall IIJllllll,,oeroent of research, evaluation and assessment functions within the District. Created and organized the department from separate functional units. Prepared short-term and long-range budget and operational plansResponsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department- Coordinated the actions of 8 professional and suppart staff members, as well as ten consultants, to respond to policy and strategic decision making ~ of senior district leadership, board memb=, building ~tors and district staff_ Met with State-level )ea\u0026lt;lership, communitl' 1eadershiP, and Unified Government staff to respond to external stakeholder needs for information. Planned for. and led applied and theoretical research projects to ,rldress pressing educational lssues relevant to local policy and i:nstnJCtional practice. Collaborated withJdistrict stakeholders and school leadersmP to find innovative solutions to cbronic educational problems in the District. 1997-1998 Senior ReseaICh Associate, Department of Research and Evaluaiion. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. K,nsas City, Missouri. Responsibilities include providing research and evaluaiion support to internal clients and external grantees. PriroarY responsibility for leading all research and evaluation support to Foundation youth developm.ent-k-12 educational program initiatives. Client initiatives include local and national resrrucruring efforts in urban school districts. Provide leadership and management of teams associated with research and evaluation efforts. supervise three junior research and evaluation associates, liaison between research and evalUBiion and clientso creaxe, plan and manage research and evaluation projects: identifl' and select external vendors for specific projectS\ncreate and review RFPs: review grant proposals requiring research and evaluation oversight or support. Provide information for senior Foundarion and school district leadersmP to infonn policy and program decisions regarding urban school restructuring. 10   ' ~ ~  ~     ~ ~,,,, ,,.. \",.., ,,, W. P. Moore ffouth Policy J(esearc:11 v, uuy, ,,__  RFQ23-0J{}-Response ofYouch Policy Research Group. Jnc. 1996-1997 Director, Department 0 [Educarional Research and Improvement, Km,sas Ciry. Missoud School Dis1ricl, K,msas City, Missouri. Cabinet-level position with direct report to Superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall management of research and evaluation functions within the Disrrict. prepared short-tenn and loog-range budget plans, fiscal authority for budger of $600,0Q(},-. Resjl\u0026lt;\u0026gt;DS1DilitY for all personnel and resource utilizarion withio the Department. Coordinared the actioos of IO professional and support staff. Established partnerships with communirY groups and school facu]t)' to discuss innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Represented the District through information and expert testimony to attorneys and the Federal Court in desegregation litigation. !993-1995 Director of Research and Assist\u0026lt; Professor, Deparnnent of OT Education, University of Kansas Medical Cenrer, K,msas City, Kansas ResponsibiJities included mentoring faculty and sn,dents to develop and complete researcb. coordjnariog and facilitating federal and private grant development, and conducting educational and psychological research. Collaborating with other researchers in health and education. In addition, provided technical support, ins(rumelll and methods development- analytic assistance, and evaluation support to researchers, students  and faculty rnernb= univefsiry-wide. MernbershiP in Data Envelopment Analysis Users Group and Tele-educarion users group. Served on~ and school-wide committees representing researcb. curriculum and instrUCUon interests. As a member of the faculty of the School of Allied Health I coordinated all school-wide professional development events for faculty. 1989-92 Proer.mEvaluator. Km,sas City, Missouri School District, Department of Research. Evaluation, and Testing, K,msas City, MissourL Complete responsibilitY for the evaluation of seven to nine magnet school programs ,nnually. Developed evaluation plans, instmlllentation data collection procedures, trained ev-tion personnel, com:dinated all data  collection schedules and activities, assessed reliability, analyzed all data, and wrote formative, summ,rive, and achievement-enrollment surnn,aries annually. Reports informed local policy decisions for Board and senior district )eadership. Reports were used to infonn Federal court decisions regarding coropJiance with court orders and progress toward established desegregation outcomes as well as state-level policy reg,rding desegregation effectiveness in Missouri. I 987-88 Research A,sistallt. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Kansas Internship Program, University ofK,msas, Lawrence, Kru,sas. Collected, analyzed, and presented da1a concerning the development of an observational system for intern teacher/trainer performance-based assessment. Teaching and Academic Appointments 2002 Lecrorer. Depanment ofPsycbology and Research in Educarion, University of Kansas. Teaching PRE 816 Evaluation of School Programs, a graduate-level evaluation comse for doctoral students. j  1993-1995 Assistant Professor. Department of OT Education. University of Kansas Medical Center. Tenure-line faculty appointment in the o,aduate School Concurrent appointment as J\nlirector of Research. Taught research methods course, graduate s,aristics and research seminar, graduate professional development ge,ninar\nprovided thesis advising to gtudents and contnDuted to the development of graduate progrmtl policies and curriculum. Mentored faculty and students in applied social science and behavioral research. o,airperson of Program Evaluation Corornittee. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RfQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Coordinator of school-wide faculty Development Education semmars. Elected to School of Allied Health Research Committee. 1993-1995 B,,search Assi-t ProfesSO'- University of l(ansaS eancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center. Honornr)' appointroent ,eeogrn,:ing contnDution to research and scholarly activitl' ContnDute consulting and coJlaborarive service to research projects- 1991-1992 J.se'U\"\" I)epartro\"nt of Educational Psychology-and Rese\u0026amp;ch. University of Kansas. Courses taught included EPR 720 a graduate level classroom assessment course\nEPR 790 Research and EvaJuarion Proposal Development\nand EPR 710 a graduate level statistics course. 1988-89 g,.,,uate Teaching As~ Department ofEducational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas- Complete responsibility for teaching two sections of EPR 3 JO, a first year graduate level educational assessment and measurement c\\asS. 1984-86 Social Sciences m=ctor and De artmen' Actin\" C  erson. Turner High School, Tumer Unified School District, 1(ansaS City, l(ansaS- Taught sections of psychology, sociology, political science, and history. Assutned acting cl,airperson pos\\tion in Spring of 1986    1981-82 fu,cial Sci\"\"'es ]I,@!!Ctor. parsons Junior High SciJool, Parsons Unified School District, parsons, Kansas- Taught ,ections of American rnstotY and introductory Jaw. -- .... .... -rt   ~ t8 ~ ~.. Assessment and Testing I 998-2002 Drr\u0026lt;Ct% Educational Resemch and Assessroent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, K,,nsas City, l(ansaS- l see above for description of responsibilities)  t 996-1997 n_rrecrgr, Dep,rttnent of Educational Research and 1mproveroont, Kansas Ci,y, Missouri School District, Kansas City, J,!issouri (see above for description of responsibilities)- 1988-1989 filsistmt to T estjng Coordina19\u0026lt; Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, K,,nsas J,,linimum eorrrpetency Testing Program, University of l(ansaS, 1..awrence, K,,nsasResponsible for assisting the coordinator in the dailY operation and coordination of a state-wide legislative mandated basic skills testing program. Developed system for rtern banking 3.000 test rterns\ntest paste-up and consrruction\nreviewins printing drafts, a\u0026lt;Jroinistering pilot srod\nes of items\nassisting with test equating and srandard setting activities.    ' -'.. .. .. ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ ~ '8 ~ .~. a..t W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.} - RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. 1987 Test Item Writer. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Developed original and revised existing multiple choice mathematics and reading items for inclusion on the 1988 K.MCT tests (grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). 1986-1987 Testing Research Assistant. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, Kansas Minimum Competency Testing Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Assisted in test construction., item tracking, and general test development activities and research regarding the KCMT. Publications Educational Psychology Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: Kansas City, MO  Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., and Coleman-Henderson K. Violence and Teens: Characteristics of High Risk Youth, Submitted to the The American Journal of Health Behavior. Moore W.P., Moranetz C.A., Owens M.M., Wordlaw-Watkins S.D., Parmet D.B., Enenbach M.J., Arroyo E.J., Hanna M.T., and Hammig B.J. The Effectiveness of a Dramatic HWIAIDS Education Program on the .Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Personal Risk of Urban Adolescents, Submitted to the Journal of Adolescent Health Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., Turkman D.F., Miller J.W., Stebbins D.R., Brown C.M., and Mosier M.C. The Community Health Project: An Example of Effective Service Learning at the University of Kansas, Submitted to Academic 1\n1:edicine. Moore, W. P. (1996). Successful grantspersonship: Achieving the three clarities. Ewing Marion Kau:ffi.:nan Foundation, Kansas City, MO  Brown, C., Moore, W. P., Heroman, D., \u0026amp; Yunek, A. (1996). Influence of instrumental activities of daily living assessment method on judgments of independence. The American Occupational Therapy Journal_ 50(3), 202-206. Moore, W. P. (1995). Action research: A primer for teacher professional development. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. 13 I  I  I ~ '_,  ~ ' -' -' ---- ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 8 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moore, W. P. (1994). Toe devaluation of standardized testing: One district's response to a mandated assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 343-367. Moore, W. P. (1994). Appropriate test preparation: Can we reach a consensus? Educational Assessment, 2(1), 51-68. Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1991). Private-public school differences in the United States: Findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. International Journal of Educational Research, 15 (5), 433-444. Moore, W. P. Relationships among teacher test performance pressures, perceived testing benefits, test preparation strategies, and student test performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1991 ). Dissertation Abstracts Internationale. Health Research and Psychology Beisecker, A. E., Murden, R., Moore, W. P., Graham, D., Helmig, L. (1996) Attitudes of medical students and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Medical Care, 34(2), 126-13 7. Fabian, C. J., Kamel, S., McKittrick, R., Zalles, C., Simon, C., l(imler, B. F., Zeiger, S., Moore, W. P., and Chin, T. (1995). Breast tissue biomarkers in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Proceedings of Cancer Symposium. Wayne State University: Kluwer Publishers. Beisecker, A. E., Helmig, L., Graham, D., and Moore, W. P. (1994)._Attitudes of oncologists, oncology nurses, and patients regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients. The Gerontologist, 34, 505-512 Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., IGmler, B. F., McKittrick, R., Trainin, A. S., Zieger, S., Moore, W. P., Hassanein, R.S., Simon, C., Johnson, N., Vergara, B., Jewell, W.R., Lin, F., Bhatia, P., and Chin, T. (1994). Prevalence of aneuploidy, overexpressed ER and EGFR and dysplastic cytology in random breast aspirates of women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 30, 263-274  Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994). Oncologists' perceptions of the effects of cancer patients' companions on physician-patient interactions. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 12 (1/2), 23-39. Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., McKittrick. R., Moore, W. P., Zeiger. S  Simon, C., IGmler. B., Cramer, A., Garcia, F., and Jewell, W. (1993). Biomarker and cytologic abnormalities in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, J 7G, 153- 160. ~ I ' '  '  ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -' --' -\" ' ' --'  W. P. Moore() owh Policy Research Group. Inc.} 9 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. inc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Proceedings from the first annual meering of Psychosocial Oncology: Enhancing Parient and Family Care, Beverly Hills. Research, Evaluation and Planning Reports Moore, W. P. and Husman, M. (in press). Constructing youth engagement: A synthesis of literature, observation and professional opinion. Prepared under contract to Kansas City Young Audiences by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. and Gramlich, A. (Sep. 2002). Evaluation of the impact of the school to enrrepreneurship program: Findings from the 2001-2002 implementation. Prepared under contract to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Moore, W. P., Anthony, J., and Husman, M. (Nov. 2001). Evaluation of the TeacherArtist Residency Professional Development Model. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (June, 2001) Effectiveness of the Young Audiences' Artist Training Conference. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moranetz, C., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Coleman-Henderson, K. (Dec, 1999). Evaluation of a Violence Prevention Program for High Risk Youth Phase One: Profiling Participants in Project SAFE. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (1999). Learning about evaluation: Who are the stakeholders? Research Brief 4, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). Summary of parent and staff support for the Early Release Program, Research Brief, 2, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). School leadership mobility in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. KCKPS Research Brief 1, Department of Educational Research and Assessment. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. 15 I I   I '    ' ' ' ' ' ' '  -    W. P. Moore (Yauch Policy Research Group, Inc.) JO RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cantwell, D. (1999). Assessment 2000: A Plan to create a world class assessment system in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cronister, J. (1998). 1997-1998 Student perceptions of instructional environment: District summary. Kansas City, KS: Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, KS Public Schools. Richtermeyer, G., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Jones, R. L. (1998). Project Choice: A summary of parent perceptions five years later. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., fomas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Gonzalez, S. (1998). Public achievement in Kansas City: Evaluation of the first year of implementation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Jianas, L., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). The scholarship initiative: Synthesis of findings from phases 1 and 2 of the implementation evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., Jianas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Robinson, R. (1998). Evaluation of the first year of implementation of Public Achievement in Kansas City: Mid-course findings  Kansas City, MO: Ewmg Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1998). Long-term planning for the evaluation of Arts Partners programming in schools. Olathe, KS: Great Plains Research and Evaluation. Moore, W. P., Richtermeyer, G., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Professional development for urban principals: Findings from a needs assessment of Kansas City principals. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the third annual Successful Schools network meeting. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W.P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the second Missouri Superintendent's Forum. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998) Evaluation of the second First Things First educational roundtable for school-site reform . Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the Missouri Superinrendent's Forum. Kansas City. MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  16  '  '' '  '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (fouih Policy Research Group, 1 nc.J JI RFQ:!3-0JO-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn:: Moore, W. P., Jones, R. (1997). Evaluarion of the First Things First Educational Roundtable for Schaal-Sire Reform. ].(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman F oundarion Daniels, S. D., fomas, L., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997). Sustainability study of youth development granrees. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Teacher perceprions of school leadership: Decision making support informarion. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. ( 1997). College prepatory education' Results of observations at Lincoln College P,eparatory Academy. ].(ansas CIT)'. MO: ].(ansas CIT)', Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; )(ass. H.K. (1997). Evaluation of the educational resrructuring efforr in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese elementary schools: Findings from the second year of evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Intern.al audit of Iowa Tests of Basic Skills special testing to determine swdent eligibility for Admission to Lincoln College P,epartory: A report to the Superincendent. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, MO School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of the FYI Training Insritute. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. (1996). Evaluation of the initial implemenJation af the Bug H U. G. S. educarion.al program. Shawnee Mission, KS: Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation.. Moore, W. P ., Kass, H.K., \u0026amp; Welch., K. (1996). Evaluation of the education.al rest,ucruring effort in the Kansas City-St. Joseph catholic diocese elementary schools: Findings from the first yew of evaluation. ].(ansas CIT)', MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. ( 1996). Implementation evaluation and identification of our comes for selected music programs offered through Arts Partners. ].(ansas City, MO: )(ausaS City Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of Arts Farmers prog,ams in the Fort Osage School District. Kansas CIT)', MO: J(ausaSCity Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. (1996). Summary of technical assistance ourcomesfor nation-wide substonce use projectsfimded by the Ewing Mwion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch. K. (1996). Evaluarion report for the 3-on-3 youth ourreach prog,am Context, implementation and preliminary outcomes. ].(ansas City. MO: Emlg Marion Kau:ffinan Foundation. I   ' -~ '' ''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Researcn Group. inc.) !2 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P. Hutcheson, D. \u0026amp; Wendt, K.. J. (1996). Summary of impact of the Dramaric AIDS Education Project at catholic high sclwols: Technical Report. Kansas City, KS: University ofl(ansas Medical Center. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. ( I 996). Evaluation report for Baseline Training in the midwest region of the United States: Implementation, rechnicol specifications, and perceived outcomes. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion K.auffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P., Welch, K.., \u0026amp; Kass, H. (1995). Final evaluation report for the STAR continuarion grants program. I(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch, K. (1995). Evaluation report for the Ewing Marion Kauffino-n Foundation's Project ST AR continuation granrs program: Unintended outcomes and future role off oundation in substance abuse prevention. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kanffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1994). Evaluarion of the Mind's Edge arts integration program: An examination of the process and products. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City Young Audiences. Atwater, J. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Applied Learning ElementarY Magnet Schools, I 990-I 99 I  Kansas City, MO: Kansas City  Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Faxon Monressori Elemenrary Magnet Sclwol Program, 1991-/992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Sclwols Program. I 991-199 2. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Southwest High School Math/Science Magnet Program, I 991-1992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missnuri School District. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Applied Learning Elemenrary Magnet Sclwols Program. I 99 J-199 2. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Mi,souri School D\n,\nrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magner Elemenrary Sclwols. Longiwdinal Report, I 989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District.. Evaluation Office. 18 I  ~ - ' '  '  ' ' '' '''''' 1ft -~ ~ Ir P. Moore (T'oucn Poucy Research Group  .1 n:. J 3 RFQ23-0I (}-Response of J'ouih Policy Research Group. in::. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summative evaluation of the lnvesrigarive Learning Elementary Magnet Schools, 1991-1992. Kansas City, MO: KansaS City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Monressori Elementary Magnet School Program, 1991-1992. J(\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet High School, 1 991-199 2. J(\n,nsas City, M 0: J(\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Investigative Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: 1(ansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of theScience/Math Middle Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Montessori Elementary Magnet Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magne1 Elementary School Program, 1990-1991. Kansas City. MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet Wgh Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri Schoo 1 Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Summative evaluation of the Fax.on Montessori Magnet School Program, Longicudinal Report, 1989-1991. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991 ). Summative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathemacics Magnet High School Prag.-am, Longitudinal Report, 1989-1991. K\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Jnvescigarive Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. 19 I   ' ' ' '  '  '  '    W. P. Moore (iourh Policy Research Group, Jnc.j /4 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the New Faxon Montessori Magnet School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Magnet Elementary Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathematics Magnet High School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Elementary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Schools, Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, i988-1989, 1989-1990. K,,nsas City, MO Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Summative evaluation of the Science/Math Middl.e Magnet Schools: Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office  Moore, W. P. (1988). Evaluation report on the Artist-in-Residence Program. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Department of Art Education. Published Abstracts Wendt K.J., Moranetz C.A., Wallace D.D .. HoffG.L., Moore W.P., Hamm.R.H., Bindman A.B., Lehman J.S. Deterrents to HIV Testing and Care: An Analysis of the HIV Referral Syscem in Missouri, Presented at 125th Annual American Public Health Association Meeting. Indianapolis. Indiana. November 1997  Wendt K.L Moranetz C.A., and Moore W.P. Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HIV Education Program For Teenage Youth. Presented at 18th Annual Scientic Sessions of The Society of Behavioral Medicine. San Francisco, California., April 1997  Moore, W.P .. Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.J. , Artitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Carholic Teenagers. Presented at 26th International Congress of Psychology. Monrreal. Canada. August 1996. 20 I I ' ' ~ ' -~ \\ ' ' '' ' ' ' ' -' ' ' -'  W. ?. Moore (Youth POiicy Researcn Group, inc.J ,J RFQ23-0JO-Response o_( l'outh Policy Research Group, In=. Conference Presentations and Session Chairs Wright. D ., Moore, W. P ., and Heiro=. J. (2002, Apr.). Whom did we miss and why? Character\nstics of non-participating general education srudents in mandated achievement assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Hamming, B. J., Moore, W. P., Mosier, M. M., Turla:nani, D. F., Young. B., \u0026amp; Anthony, A. (2000, Apr.). Service learning Merging medicine and public health. The Community Healrh Project at the University af Kansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting oftbe Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, Atlanta. GA. Coleman-Henderson K., Moranetz C.A., Moore W.P. (2000, Apr.). Violence and Teens Characteristics of High-Risk Youth, Srudent National Medical A.,sociarion 35 Annual Medical Education Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Wendt, JU., Moranetz, C. A., Wallace, D. D., Hoff, G. L., Moore, W. P., Har=, RH  B-A. B., and Lebman, J. S. ( l 997, Nov.). Deterrents to HIV testing and carec An analysis of the HIV referral system in Missouri. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Indianapolis, IN. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Using multiple measures in evaluation. Chairpenon for conference session in Division R Research on Evaluation Special Interest Group. Session delivered at the annual rneerinll of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Wendt, IC, Moranetz., C. A, \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HW Education Program For Teenage Youth. Paper pre-ed at the annual meeting oftbe Society for Behavioral Medicm.e, Washington, DC. Moore, W .P ., Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.l. ( 1996, Aug.). Attitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Catholic Teenagers, Presented at the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal.\nCanada- Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. (1995, Apr.). The role of teachers in the development of the national educational research agenda Is ar,yone in Washington listening? Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the AJDerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Moranetz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Apr.). A collaborative AIDS education model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adnlescenrs. Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicllle. San Diego. 21 W. P. Moore () 'owh Pnlicy Research Group, inc./ /6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Mar.). The impact of a dramatic AIDS education program on knowledge and behavioral intentions of teenagers. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M. M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. D. (1994, Nov.). AIDS education and prevention: A medicine and drama model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adolescents. Paper presented at the annual University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Kamel. S., Fabian, C., Zalles, C., McKittrick, R., Kimler, B., Zeiger, S., Simon, C., Moore, W. (1994, Nov.). Correlation of breast tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the annual Faculty Research Day at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Kansas City, KS. Moranetz, C. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, July). The dramatic AIDS education project: The impact of an innovative program on the knowledge, attitudes and behavior of teenagers. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the National Wellness Conference, Stevens Point, Wl. Scott, D. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Jun.). Predicting academic success and failure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Commission on Education, Boston. Moore, W. P., Moranetz, C. A., Hanna, M. T., \u0026amp; Arroyo, E. Y. (1994. Jun.). Effects of a dramatic education intervention on AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the sixth annual meeting of the American Psychological Society. Washington. DC. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman., M. E. (1994, Apr.). Exploring the context of teacher efficacy: The role of achievement and school climate. Paper presented at-the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Fabian. C., Zalles, C., Kamel. S., McKittrick. R., Kimler, B., Zeiger. S., Simon, C  Moore, W. (1994, Apr). Correlation of breasr tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Francisco. Moranetz. C. A., Arroyo, E. Y .. Hanna. M. T .. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994. Feb). The implementation and evaluation of an innovative AIDS education program. Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Journal of Health Promotion research conference. Colorado Springs. CO. 22   ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' '\\ '.. '''\" -.. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) Ji RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1993, Nov.). Attirudes regarding desire for information and patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented a! the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Sept.). The effects of patient age on attitudes of oncologists. oncology nurses and female patients regarding patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Diego. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Arroyo, E. Y., \u0026amp; Hanna, M. T. (1993, Nov.). The impact on teenagers of an innovafive AIDS education program: Results from the first pilot year Paper preseoted at the University of Kansas Medical Center annual faculty research day, Ki,nsas City, KS. .  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. ( l 993, Nov.). Identifying research prioriries in education: Results from a national sample of university educarors. Paper presented at the snnual F acuity Research Day, University ofl(ansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Apr.). Preparation of swdents for testing: Teacher differentiation of appropriare and inappropriate practices. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta- Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 992, Nov.). Attiwdes of oncologists and oncology nurses regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients: Implications for provider-patient communication. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C. BeIBecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Nov.). Attitudes of medical sn,dents and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, wasmngton, D c. Moon,, W. P. \u0026amp; Beisecker, A. E. (l 992, Nov.). Oncologist's perceptions of physician cancer patient-companion interactions. Poster presented at the University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Sept.). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Presented at the first Psychosocwl Oncology: Enhancing PatiOnt and Family Care Conference, Beverly Hills, CA. Essebnan, M. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( 1992, Apr.). In search of organiiationnl variables which can be altered to promote an increased sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. 23 W. P. Moore ffouch Policy Research Group. Inc.) 18 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1992, Apr.). Testing perceptions, practices, and malpractice: The impacr on teachers of court-ordered achievement testing in a desegregation setting. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esse~ M. E. (1992, Apr.). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. (1990, Apr.). Ethnic group differential mathematics achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Miller, M. D. (1990, Apr.). Differential insrructional environments in public and private school classrooms: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Peckover, R. (1989, Nov.). Integrating the phases of item management utilizing Apple's HyperCard. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Hsia, S. (1989, Nov.). Qualitatively better education in private school classrooms? Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Hsia. S. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1989, Nov.). Factors associated with minority group achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas. Pittsburg, KS.  Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Private-public achievement differences in the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans. Salkind, N. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Leaming about children and families. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development. New Orleans. Moore, W. P. (1 987. ov.). Teacher observation under a microscope: A iechniquefor evaluating the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas- Lawrence, KS. lnvited Addresses, Seminars, and Training Presentations I ~  ' '' '''''' ' ' ' ' -''' .. '..  '  '.. W. P Moore(} ouih Polzet Researcn Grou_o. 1nc.1 , ~ RFQ23-010---Response of fown Policy Researcn Group, Jru: Moore, W. P. and Gambone. M.A. (2002. Aug.). A theory ofchange approach to evaluating community-wide reform. Invited presentation to the Los Angeles. California County Commissioners meeting, Long Beach, CA. Gambone, M. A. and Moore, W. P. (200'.?.. Feb.). A theory of change approach to evaluating education system reform. Invited presentation at The Aspen Institute's Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Glen Cove, Long Island, New York. Moore, W. P. (2001. Aug.). Re-casting the role of the arts in k-12 education: How the arts can contribute to the national educational reform dialogue . Invited panel presentation at the Annual National Conference of Young Audiences Organizations. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Aug.). Next steps for the evaluation of Public Achievement in Kansas City. Invited presentation to the Kansas City Partners of Public Achievement. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, May). Understanding the process of benchmarking and establishing benchmarks w guide internal improvement efforts. Invited presentation to the Department of Research and Evaluation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Independence. MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Feb.). Re-casting the role of the arts in education: How evaluation can shape the local and national agenda. Invited panel presentation to the Young Audiences Board of Directors. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Jun.). Furure direcrionsfor the West-Cenrral Associated Schools: What do evaluation results tell us? Invited presentation to community and school stakeholders of the West-Central Associated Schools sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Setting realistic and meaningful system and school goals. Invited kevnote address at the Kansas City, Missouri School District's District-wide administrators workshop on school improvement planning. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, May). Consequences of mandared achievement testing: Resulrs from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, Auburn University. Auburn, AL. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Introduction to positive youth development through asset building in our communities and schools. Invited keynote address to the Advisory Board ofthe HelpNet Community Project. Overland Park. KS. 25 ' ~ ' -- \" \"-   -~ \"\" \" ~ -  -  W. P. Moore rTouzh Policy Research Group, h,c.) 2(J RFQ23-0JO-Response of You1h Policy Research Group. Inc. Moran.etz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Adolescent health behaviors: The good, the bad and the ugly. Invited keynote address to parents of O'Hara High School. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Consequences of mandated achievement testing: Results from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Moore, W. P. (1996, Mar.). Teacher leadership through action research. Invited keynote address to Park Hill School District Administrative Leadership. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Preparing your grant application to increase the chances of funding. Invited professional development seminar to Baseline Cad.re members from Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Professional development through action research. Invited staff development seminar to Park Hill School District faculty and staff. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W.P. (1995, Dec.). Evaluation as a stimulant for creating a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board of Directors of l(ansaS City Arts Partners. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). The role of evaluation in a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board ofDirectors of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). Locatingfunders and.preparing grant applications. Invited staff development seminar to ST AR schools faculty. Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Oct.). Achieving the three clarities of successful grantspersonship  Invited staff development seminar to Baseline program cad.re in Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado  Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1(ansaS City, MO  Moore, W. P. (1995, Sept.). Designing client-focused program evaluacions. Invited staff development seminar sponsored by the University of Kansas Medical Center, Child Development Unit, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1995, May). Outcomes-Based Evaluation. Invited staff development seminar to the staff of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995. Apr.). Using SPSS (Statiscical Package for the Social Sciences) in applied research. Invited staff development seminar to the faculty of the University of Kansas Department of Occupational Therapy Education. Kansas City. KS  26 I  ' ' ~ ~  .. .. ~ ~ ~ ..   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-. W P. Moore (Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. ) ~l RFQ23-0JO--Respome of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. (1995, Mar.). Improving your classroom-based assessments. Invited staff development seminar to the University of Kansas Department of Physical Therapy Education, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Richards, L. (1994, Dec.). Assessing independent living. Invited presentation at the University of Kansas Medical Center OT Education conference: The Competent Professional: A Balance of Work-Play-Leisure, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Moranetz, C. (1994, Aug.). An AIDS education program. Invited presentation to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moranetz, C. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). The implementation of an innovative AIDS education project. Invited presentation to the Kansas University Affiliated Programs Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). How to improve your classroom-based assessments  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminar, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Kansas University Affiliated Program Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). The clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS . Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Problem-based learning and critical thinking. Symposium chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars, Kansas City, KS.  Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). How children are assessed in schools. Invited address to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Feb.). How to be creative and effective in the classroom  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars. Kansas City, KS  Moore, W. P. (1993, Dec.). Developing educationally useful and defensible classroom tests. Invited training seminar to the faculty of the Department of Occupational Therapy Education, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. Clinician as researcher. (1993, Nov.). Invited kevnote address at the annual meeting of the Kansas Occupational Therapy Association, Topeka, KS. 27 ~ ' \\ ~ \\ ~ '  ' ~ ' ' '  ~ ~ W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. j 11!:.} 2] RFQ23-0W-Response ofYourh Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; McCl~ L. (1993, Nov.). Understanding quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Invited presentation to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman, W. P. (1992, Mar.). The influence of school climate on student achievement and teacher efficacy. Invited presenta1ion to Kansas City, Missouri School Di.strict Conflict Resolution subcommittee, l(an.sas City, MO. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Seever, M. (1992, Mar.). Large-scale testing: The impact on instrUction and school curriculum. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Seever, M. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Jan.). How students learn: Implications for insrrucrional design. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Test performance and test preparation: How instruction and curriculum are influenced Invited presentation during spring staff development to administration and faculty at district elementary schools, West Rock Creek Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Testing practices and preparation: How to benefit your students' test performance. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school administration and faculty, Swinney Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Feb.). Testing programs and teacher practices. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school School Advisory Committee, Swinney Elementary. Kansas City. MO. Moore, W. P. (1991, Aug.). Health professions educational programs in the Kansas Cicy, Missouri School Disrrict, A sta1US report. Invited kevm,te address to fi,oulty at the 1991 District Inservice Conferences. University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1990, Aug.). A report on the status of mathematics and science education in the Kansas Ciry, Missouri School Disrrict. Invited kevnote address to di.strict-wide faculty at the 1990 Opening of School Conference, Kansas City, MO. Externally Funded Research \u0026amp; Training The Evaluation of the Kansas Superintendent's Forum. Principal Investigator: W. Moore. Total CostS: 96.157.25. Funded by the Kansas Health Foundation.. November 2002-December. 2004. 28 W P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 23 RFQ23-0!0-Response of Yau.th Policy Research Group, Inc. Evaluation of the Impact of the School to Entrepreneurship Program. Principal InveStigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 9750.00. Funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation., July 2002- ovember, 2002. The Dramatic AIDS-Education Project: A program for extreme risk youth. Co-principal Investigators: J. Pelster, C. Moranetz, W. Moore. Total Costs: 18,000. Funded by Heart of America Community Foundation for AIDS and Design Industries Foundation Fighting AIDS, October, 1995-September, 1996. Development of a Consolidated Interdisciplinary Model for Providing Inclusive Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities. Co-Principal Investigators: W. -Dunn and W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education. US Department of Education. Total Costs: 157,962. Application Approved, May, 1995. Institute on Statistical Analysis for Education Policy. American Educational Research Association Grants Program for the Enhancement of Education Statistics, Mathematics, and Science Education., and the Educational Research Infrastructure. Funded. April, 1995. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Development of a Middle School Educational Intervention. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with The Coterie Theatre. Total Costs: 34,000. Funded by The Kansas City Junior League, June, 1995-May, 1997. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Continuation for Year Two. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with Toe Coterie Theatre. Total Costs 36,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, AU:,crust, 1994-August 1995. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education\nCo-investigator: C. Mercer. Funded by the Kansas State Board of Education. Total Costs: 5,000. January 1993-September 1994. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education. Funded by the University of Kansas, Graduate Studies and Faculty Research Grant, Total Costs: 1,000. April, 1994 and March, 1995 The Validity of JADL Assessments for Predicting Function in Natural Environments. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education\nCo-Investigator: C. Brown. Funded by the University of Kansas, School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Fund. Total Costs: 750.00. July 1993-June 1994. The Dramatic Aids Education Project. A joint project with Toe Coterie Theatre and the University of Kansas Medical Center. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz, Associate Professor Preventive Medicine. Co-investigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 23,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, Inc. August 1993-July 1994. 29 I  ~ '   ..   \".... .... .... .... .... ..  W. P. Moore (fouth Policy esearcn RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Honors, Awards, Elected and Appointed Positions Adv\u0026lt;\nory Council, CommunitJ' Health Promotion Project, University of Kansas Medical Center, 2A0d0v1i-sPorreys Benota rd, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998-Present National Panel of Writers, Joint Cornrrrinee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, Subcommittee to develop standards for student evaluation, Western Michigan University, 1998 Vice-President of Education, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998 Kansas City Ribbon of Hope Award, The Dramlictic AIDS Education Project, 1997 Board Secretary, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Center, 1997 Board of Directors, Sunflower House, 1997-1998 Vice-President for Education, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1996. \"Faculty Marshall, University of Kansas Commencement Ceremonies, 1995 Who's Who in American Education, 5th Edition. A. N. Marquis Publishers, 1996-1997 Univ. ofKansas School of Allied Health, Research Committee, Elected by Faculty, 1994 Univ. of Kansas Graduate Studies and Research faculty Travel Grant, 1994, 1995 Board of Directors, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1994 Appointment to the KU Cancer Center as Honorarv Research AssisW\u0026gt;t Professor, 1993 Univ. of Kansas School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Award, Fall, 1993 Selected by faculty to Madeline Hunter Effective Tear.rung Cadre, 1985-1986 Kansas National Education Association-Turner, Building Representative, 1985-86 Professional Service National Reviewer. W. T. Grant Foundation., 2002-Present Member, Panel of Writers, The Joint Committee on Standmds for Educational E valuarilm  Western Michigan University., 1997-1998 National Succes.eful Schools planning T earn. 1997-1998 Editorial Board Member. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 1994-1998 Member. ational Research Development Committee. American Occupational Therapy Foundation. 1995-97 Grant Reviewer, U.S. Deparrment of Health and Human Services. Administration on Children- Y outb and Families, 1992-1998 Program Reviewer. American Psychological Sociery. 1992-1995 Manuscript Reviewer, Macmillan Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1991-1995 Manuscript Reviewer. Wadsworth Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1995-1996 30  t       .. .... .... .... .... ....  \" W. P Moore (You1h Policy Research Group. inc.) __ RFQ23-0JO--Response of }'ou1h Policy Research Group, Jr::. Regional and Local Kansas Ciry Merropolitan Task Force to Establish Local Standards for Evaluarion, 1998 Kansas Ciry Urban Principal's Leadership Planning Team. 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry Metropolitan Area Early Childhood Care and Education Planning Team. 1997-1998 Missouri Superintendent's Forum Planning Team, 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry, Missouri School-to Career Communiry Steering Commitree, 1997-1998 BE2 School-to-Career Functional Team Member, Benchmarking and Evaluation, 1997-2000 Kansas Ciry Public Achievement: Leadership Team member. 1998-2000 Dramatic AIDS Education Projecr: Co-Director, Research and Evaluation. 1993-1997 Consuhant, Research and Evaluation, 199'.?., 1998-Present Coalition for Positive Family Relationships: Education and Training Committee member, 1995-1997 Family Research Team Committee member, 1995-1997 Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center Advisory Board Member, 1998-Present Vice-President of Education, 1997-1998 Executive Committee, 1997-1998 Strategic planning Crurirperson, 1997-1998 Board of Directors, 1997-1998 Education Committee member, 1997-199 Child Abuse Prevention Coalition: Board of Directors, 1994-1997 Sunflower Children's Advocacy Center/CAPC Merger Joint Task Force, 1995-96 Wyandotte County, Child Abuse Task Force, CAPC 1995-1996 Vice-President, Education, 1996 Executive Committee, 1996-1997 Executive Director Search Committee, 1994 Strategic Planning Chairperson\n1994-1997 Education Committee member, 1993-1997 HelpNET:A Communiry Response to Youth Development, Overland Park, KS, Co-Organizer, 1995-1996 Institutional Summer School Planning Committee, Member, Kansas City. Kansas Public Schools. 1998-2002 KCKPS and KNEA Instructional Improvement Initiative Planning Committee, 1999-2002 Overcrowded Schools Committee. Member. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1999-200'2 Superintendent's Assessment Advisory Committee. Chairperson. Kansas City. Kansas Public 31 W. P. Moore (YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc.) 26 R.FQ23-0IO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Schools, 1998-2002 Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools District Data Team, Chairperson., Kansas City, Kansas Public Superintendent' s Management Team (Cabinet), Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1998-2002 Schools, 1998-2002 First Things First: Kansas City, Kansas School District, Research Management Team, 1997-2002 Superintendent's Cabinet, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Desegregation Transition Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School Dist., 1996-97 Education Leadership Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Missouri School Improvement Plan, Advisory Council, KCMSD, 1996-97 Superintendent's Planning Team for School Reorganization and Closings, KCMSD, 1996-1997 Superintendent's Testing Advisory Committee, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1991-92 Kansas City, Missouri School District Magnet Program Planning Committees, 1989-91 Graduate Faculty, University ofKansas, 1993-1995 Internal Advisory Panel, University of Kansas Medical Center, Primary Care Physician Education Grant, 1994 Coordinator, School of Allied Health Faculty Development Seminars, 1993-95 Research Committee, Member \u0026amp; Secretary, School of Allied Health, 1994-1995 Thesis Committee Member, Departments of OT Education., Preventive Medicine, Speech and Hearing, 1993-96 Co-Chairperson., Program Evaluation Committee, Dept of OT Education, 1993-1995 Graduate Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Senior Directors Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Chairperson, Student Research Handbook Committee, Dept of OT Education., 1993-1995 Acting Department Chairperson, Dept. of Social Sciences, Turner High School, 1986 Turner SRA Testing Committee, 1985-86 Faculty Sponsor, Turner Students Mental Health Patients Cbristma:S Fund, 1985 orth Central Accreditation Steering Committee, Turner Unified School District, 1985 Chairperson., North Central Accreditation Goals and Objectives Committee, Turner School District, 1985 32 Likmd ,Yeh~ Mu~(0G) /12?/(}A'I ~/uQ-/u)n TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RECEIVED 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FEB 11 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: 1 ?--.Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Extended Year Education (EYE) program. District staff had completed a program evaluation after the end of the 2000-2001 school year, and it was presented to the Board of Education for information. Another report was also completed for the 2001-2002 school year. Both of these preliminary studies are attached for the Board's information. Steps Taken as a Result of the 2000-2001 Program Evaluation Three schools initially participated as EYE schools: Stephens Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, and Woodruff Elementary. In fall 2002, two additional schools were added : Cloverdale Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. Some modifications to the intersessions were made in 2002-2003, but these were not a result of the program evaluation. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Extended Year Education (EYE) program evaluation to the firm , Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. Dr. Moore's and Dr. Theresa Akey's resumes are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Sharon Brooks, Principal, Stephens Elementary School Ms. Tab Phillips, Principal, Mabelvale Elementary School Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal, Woodruff Elementary School Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Teachers at Stephens, Mabelvale, and Woodruff who administered the various assessments-ORA and Observation Surveys at grades K-2\nBenchmarks at grade 4\nAL Ts at grades 2-5\nand SAT-9 at grade 5. Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator's conclusion wast hat \" Unfortunately, the limited nature oft he original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question oft he extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Extended Year .Education (EYE) program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ -~ \"\" ~ ' ~ ~ \"\"- --  Jl T A/CeV fl UWr\u0026lt;, v .. - . -- RFQ13-0JO-Response ~[Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Theresa Akey bas exrensive experience m the areas of evaluation, research and assessment She earned her doctorate m educational psychology, research and sraristics from the University of Kansas m 1995 and her master's m cornrnunitY and school counseling from Delta State University m 1990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, ll}cludlllg evaluation of grants, staff development training, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organizations mt he areas of alcohol and drug abuse, cornrnunitY counseling, and other services m both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director oftbe Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where she co-authored grants, condDcted research, and coordinated research and evaluarion acrivities for a large research cenrer focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. Akey bas extensive background m educational assessment, research evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assisrant professor mth e area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for twO years, and mosr recently in the role of director of educational research, evaluation, and assessment m a J(mlsas Ciry area school district for the last four years. 38 I ~   '''- ..  .... \" ..     .... T. Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc. J 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Jnc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.0. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-01% (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 628-1927 (F) takey@YErg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional devdopment and evaluation, insrructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE  Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical madding, and qualitative design and analysis.  Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. :::i Program evaluation in educational and community settings  Curriculum devdopment in K-12 and higher education settings  Professional devdopment in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment devdopment, and program evaluation  Grant and proposal writing Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research ,vith emphases in devdopmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (191). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock. ~ Psychology and sociology 39 I   -t   I I  ' -        T. Ake\\ (Youih Policy kesearcn Group, inc.J J RFQ23-0JO-Response offouth Policy Research Group. Inc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company  mInadniaagneam Teenatc hing ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards. D YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of instructional survey and observation data. including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted time-series analyses  o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Pane Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment  Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities.  Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\n Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department  Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-embedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and D eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and D eDveavluealotipomn egnuti daenldin iems .p lementation of district-wide program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state committees related -to K-12 assessment and evaluation issues.  Led applied and theoretical research projecrs to address pressing educational issues relevant to  local policy and instructional practice  Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the District. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder .and owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management system for reporting assessment information to teachers and administrators  :J Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied to state standards and benchmarks  D Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 ~ ~  ' ' ' '         t t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group, Im:. ) ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youzh Policy Research Group, inc. D Educational consultant to Missouri school districtS- using data to make instructional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districtS to do training and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Strategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of instructional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). o Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development  Developed instruments to measure constructS of psychological empowerment  Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability.  Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability   Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner  Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and  DRiessaebairlcihti easn, dU nstiavteisrtsiictsy coofn Ksualntsaanst.. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of D KFaamnsialsy support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation o lnscructional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Educacion Department, Adjunct Professor, SAtuanbduarrnd sU-Bniavseerds iAtys,s eAsusmbuernnt , AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, mulcivariate statiscics. and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research  Instructor, Basic educacional statistics  41        I    T. Akey (J\"outh Policy Research Group. JnC.) J RFQ13-0JO-Response offowh Policy Research Group, Jn:: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Gradu~te Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational sratistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools (1990-1991), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Behavioral lntervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; M.ey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, Af.ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of )650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. Af..ey, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant t H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Af..ey, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Ares, N.M., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1ournal 25(1), 49-71  Af..ey, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvcholorical Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. M. (1997). Ari investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., \u0026amp; Af..ey, TM. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Green, S. B., Af..ey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L.. \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effects of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, ~(2) . 42   t           I T. Akey ffouJh Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RFQ:23-0 I a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc. Afcey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: lmplicati.ons for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program. Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N.]., \u0026amp; Mey, T.M. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 1st Editi.on. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R..., \u0026amp; Barber, P.A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family support setting. 1n G. Singer, LE. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L. (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support: Introduction to public-private partnerships. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o\u0026lt; not to help, A ,o,dy of group and individual v,,iabks in a monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Afcey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Afcey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual (Teacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring ResearchJ. New York MacMillan  CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Dau to !mprnve lmtruction. Wo,kshop p,esenwl to tl Regional P,.ofcssioual Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J .. Eick, C., and Afcey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 26-30, 2000  Afcey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, ). (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeri.ng of the American Educational Research Association Montreal, Canada, April 19-23 , 1999  Ares, K \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Afcey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Understanding the effeccs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normaliry and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as pan of a \"\"\"posiuro (al.so chai, rnd o,gmiu\u0026lt; of smion) Modeling on-norm,! D,u fo, ,he rnnu,l ro~ring of the American Educaoonal Research Association, San Diego, CA. April 12-17, 1998  43 I  , t i ~  I 9 8  ~ ~ W!f ~ l.-il.t -- ~- T. Akey (foUih Policy Research Group, inc. , R.FQ23-0 Io-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn::. /Cm, T. M, \u0026amp; A=, N. M. (Novanbe\u0026lt;, 1997). Conttpa\u0026gt;al and Bclicf ChanS\"' lmplicarions of, Socioculnml Apptn\u0026gt;ch to EducaUUg ps=,vicc Tcachm\n. Cl\u0026gt;,s,ooroB.scd Assessment P\u0026gt;pcr p,cscnd \u0026gt;t ili, mnual rowing of ,he MidSouili Eduational R,scatch Associ\u0026gt;rion. Memphis, TN, ovcnbet 12 14, 1997 /Cm, T. M., M\u0026gt;tqui,, J. G., \u0026amp; Tum bull, H R. (August. 1997). Effrro of f,mily Suppon Ptogr,uns on P\u0026gt;tcntal Eropow=ncnL P\u0026gt;pct P\"\"ntcd \" ,he ,nnual meeting of ,he Aroctiosn Psychological Associ,tion, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lusti~ D., \u0026amp; /Cm, T. M. (Ap,il, 1997) f,mi\\y Adapurion\n. f,milics wiili Adult Cbildten wi,h Mental Rewdationc lmp\u0026gt;ct ofF.unily So-cngilis and Apprais\u0026gt;l PP'\" p,cscnusl \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual meeting of m, American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 10-13, 1997. Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Gtccn, S. B. (M,tch, 1997). A Modd of Mo,al Deci,ionM,ltingc A Srody of Gwu p wd Individual Influcnw. P,pcr p,=ntcd \" ,he ,nnual mccUUg of ,he An,ctican Educational Rcs=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; G,w,, S. B. (M=h, 1997). Tb\u0026lt; Rchuionsbip Jk,wccn Pomt md Intcnnrrdansl Dependent V,riablcs m MANOVA. Posre, p,,,,,ntcd \"m, ,nnual mcering of ,he An,ctiosn Educ\u0026gt;rional R,s=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. (FcbnW'/, 1997). Coofum\u0026gt;to,Y F,ctot Analysi, of, Moral Dilcnun Hdping Mcasut\u0026lt; P,p,s p,cscntI \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual mceUUg of m, E,w= Educ,rion\u0026gt;l R=ch A,soci,tion. Hilton Head, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hmscn, C., G=n, S. B., \u0026amp; Ny, T. M. (1996). An invarig,rion of i= difficuley inro,poraUUg srructut\u0026lt; of li,twing tcsuc A l,i,wchical lin\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t mod ding ,n,lysi.. P,pcr p,csW,I \u0026gt;t ili\u0026lt; Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Akey, T. M. (D=mbu, 1995). Effects of family support p,ogrnms on P\"'W ,mpow,nncnt. Wmkshnp presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (A'y), T. M. (August, 1994). Tb\u0026lt; dcodopmcnt of ,he Psychological EmpQWWO'' Sc,k Plimin,ry invcsrig,rions. Pom\u0026lt; p,cscnrarioo \u0026gt;t ,he ,nnual roceUUg of m, An,aican Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Uun\u0026lt;, 1993). Roundublc discussioos on family cmpnwcnn\u0026lt;nt wd f=ily sctvises. Invited ,oundrabl\u0026lt; p,rticip\u0026gt;n\u0026lt; wd P\"''\"' ,t m, ,nnual f,mily Support ,nd f,mily Empowenn\u0026lt;n\u0026lt; Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS /Cm, T.M. (2002). Effects of sw,dwl.s-b.a,d ,sscssmon\u0026lt; on insnuctional pnctiscs in middle school m\u0026gt;ili teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using d,u ,s , method fo ,chool imp\"\"'\"'\"'' plannffig ,nd dctisionmkingc Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). 2000-2001 Diso-ict P,.fonnan Updac Asscssmcns of ili\u0026lt; Show-Mc Srand\u0026gt;tds Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October 12, 2000. 44 t ~ ~ t  t ~ I          .. T. Akey (YOUih Policy Research Group. inc) 8 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Jnc. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insuuctional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (200 l) V ,lidacion nf l,aming c\u0026lt;p\u0026lt;ctacinn, fo, , ,rand,uds-b,sol cuniculum in rommunicacinn ans. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effecrivon\u0026lt;Ss of th\u0026lt; Cl,ss-W\u0026gt;thin-,-Cl,,, Modd  .,..Ju,rion ,\u0026lt;port fo, Puk Hill School Disuict. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Ev,lu,rion of cl,ss rank p,ocoluresc Ex,min,cion of ,!,en, m,thod,. Ev,lu,cion report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M (2001). Eff\u0026lt;ru nf Block Scboluling on !nsrrucrinnal P,wi= Ev,lu,cion ,\u0026lt;port p,opu,d fo, Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001. ll\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (2000). Titl, l v,lu,rinn F,pnnc Ad\u0026lt;qu\u0026gt;. Y=ly P,ng,css ,nd F,cnmmondarions fa, Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, December 7, 2000. ll\u0026lt;,y, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District P\"fnnnmcr Upd,tt. Evalu,rinn report pp=d fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 12, 2000  Al=f, T. M. (2000). Eff,ru of Blnck Scboluling on Srod,nt Outt\u0026lt;\u0026gt;m\u0026lt;'' Man\u0026lt;,Y ,chi=\"'' uolin, ,nd test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, April, 2000. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness of Full-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict. N\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). 199\u0026amp;-1999 District PWOnnancr Upd\"' v,lu,rion ,\u0026lt;port pel\"'ol fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Gmn, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; !1,_ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS fa, Windows, An,!yzing ,nd Undc\u0026gt;unding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas yWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I ~ ~ t   ~        ..    T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jru:. Auburn Universitv 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 199~ 1998 Society for Research In Child Development 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSouth Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 l I  -t              ,,  W. P. Moore (Youth J'ollcy J{esearcn uruu, \"\"-- '  RFQ23-0JO-Response ofl'OU1h Policy Research Group, Inc. WILLJAMP. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Partner with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently he is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a .post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Cbildrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course. Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundatio~ and held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation studies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas Ci-rys Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Managing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting furn. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowennent program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where he was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation: was a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore s research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, anirudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Education, Educational Assessment, the Jnrernational Journal of Educarional Research, and The American Occupazional Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therap} Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation. 7 I  ~ ' ' '         W. P. Moore (}'ouzh Policy Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ13-0JO-Response of You.th Policy Research Group, Inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAMP- MOORE, PH. D. OCTOBER, 2002 Home 11478 South Wilder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box 4196 l(ansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. s64. 0143 M 913. 390. 6162 (F) wrooore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University ofl(ansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Social Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group lnc., Kansas City, KS Lecturer, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Grant Reviewer, William T. Grant Foundation, New York., NY Advisory Board, Sunflower Housec A Child Abuse Prevention Center, Overland j'ark, KS Advisory Boa,d, Communitl' Health Prornotion Program, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 8 I  ~ , -' ---I I I ~ ~ ~     -- W. P. Moore (l'outh Poiicy Research Group, me.\n3 RFQ23-0JO-Response o_(Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a corporate partnership formed by youth and education researchers located in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Toe mission ofthis firm is to engage in applied research and evaluation studies that will contribute to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to achieve long-term developmental success both academically and behaviorally. Much of the work already completed by YPRG researchers is in the K-12 education arena. Acting mana::.aing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Mana...oin2: Consultant, Great Plains Research and Evaluarion, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy furn focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience. Overall responsibility for managing research and evaluation contractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants, managed resources and budget, negotiated contracts, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of data collection, analysis, dissemination, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman. Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services  State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health. Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse  State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins  Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Sc\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1046","title":"\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\"","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Ross, Steven M."],"dc_date":["2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\""],"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/1046"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nUSCHEL H FR10AY(lt22-1'94) JLLIAM H SUTTON, P.A iON M EISEMAN. JR, P.A  O BELL, PA JAMES A BUTTRY, PA FREDERICK. S URSERY,,. A. ,..SCARE DAVIS, JR, P.A MES C. CLARJC, JR , PA. OMAS p LEGGETT, P.A t{N DEWEY WATSON, PA PAUL B BENHAM Ill.PA LARRY W BUJlK.S, P A  WYCK.LIFP NISBET, JR..., P.A MES EDWARD HARRJS, P.A PHILLIP MALCOM, PA MES M SIMPSON, P A JAJllfES M SAXTON, PA J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, PA DONALD H BACON. P.A ILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A (HARD D TAYLOR.PA SEPH B HURST, JR.., PA ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUR.llAY, PA CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH, PA ROBERT S. SHAPER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill, P.A MICHAELS MOORE, P.A DIANE S MACKEY, PA WALTER M EBEL 111, P A KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WADDELL, JR., PA SCOTT J LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR . P A J LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR.PA HAR.AV A LIGHT, PA SCOTT H TUCKER. PA GUY ALTON WADE, PA PRICE C. GARDNER.PA TONIA P JONES, P A DAVID D WILSON, PA JEFFREY H MOORE, P A DAVID M GRAF. P .A RECEIVED 1/'11/M DEC - 4 2002 j-/?Vid - Oc /,vu e cL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRlDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3'25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-41!111 TELEPHONE 479-l!llil5-2011 FAX 479-l!llil5-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 1!170-7\u0026amp;2-2898 FAX 870-7152-2911!1 December 4, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR, PA JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A FRAN C. HICK.MAN, P A BETTY J DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M JOHNSON, P A JAMES W SMITH, PA CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, PA DANIEL L. HERRJNGTON, P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR ALLISON J_ CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G NICHOLS ROBERT T SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTKY C. EZELl T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KJUSTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M EDDINGS JOHN F PEISERICH AMANDA CAP'PS ROSE BRANDON 1. HARRISON OFCOUNS[L BS CLARK. WILLIAM L TERJt.Y WILLIAM L PATTON, JR H T LARZELERE, P A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P A A O MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-l70ll23 FAX 5D1244-5341 f  ndl  yOftc.n  t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hansen Ofc of the Attorney qeneral 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed please find, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\" prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School District's March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committee's proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fmdley\\LRSD\\dcseg\\counsel2 It. wpd n :o ro 0::, ~rt n\"\"\" ' ro l\"1 \u0026lt;  H'I tn 0 l\"1 l\"1 ro ~ en ro g~ ::, Cl C/l l\"1 ro n ::,' ,... = rt,, (I \u0026gt; Cl ~::r 00 n::, I\"\" Cl Qt All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will eleviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the court's March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken J arnes F:IHOME\\BBrownlfendleyll.RSDldcseg\\counscl2 h wpd Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. () \"\"'1) 0 :, 1--' rt ~-Cl) n l'\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l'\"1 l'\"1 '1) ,:j en ro \"'Cl en 0 '1) :, Ill en l'\"1 ro n ::r 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\n' 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 (') \"ti (I) 0:::, ~rt ~-(I) 0 l\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l\"1 l\"1 (I) !:C en ro -c, en 0 (I) :::, Ill en l\"1 (I) 0 ::r 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\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (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) Thi/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. (') \"O Cl) 0::, .... rt\" I-'('!) n ~ '\u0026lt; t-'11 en o ~ ~ Cl)?:-' en m \"Cl en 0 Cl) ::, Ill en ~ m n ::r )\" en en 0 n I- Ill Q rt Cl) 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, suggestiJns 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 (\") \"Cl ro 0 ::, ~M' n'\"'' lr'oi -\u0026lt;  1'11 en o l'i l'i ro ~ en ro ~ en o ro ::, QI en l'i ro n ::,' 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 ExceIJence 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 sti11 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\"l \"O Cl) 0::, ~ rt' ~-Cl) n l'1 ~ - H'I en o l'1 l'1 Cl) ,:I en m \"O en 0 Cl) ::, llJ en l'1 m n ::,' ~- ::, t:l .0, 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 third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. , 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CL Ts at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 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. C\"'l \"d Cl) 0::, r-' rt\" .... Cl) n l\"1 \u0026lt; - Hi tll 0 l\"1 l\"1 Cl) ~ Ill Cl) 'Cl Ill 0 Cl) ::, 0J Ill l\"1 ro n ::,\" .... ::, t'l .Q , ~The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall October 28, 2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis, RECEIVED 'j : I 2p rvJ DEC - 4 2002 I f.t,i,,J . /)C'l1 ~ ~~ c J., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policy's response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or ifl can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. il~ Steven M. Ross Director A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opponunity/Afflrrnsliw Action University Response from the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis to: RFQ Number: 23-010 Title: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant Opening date/time: ovember 6, 2002 (2:00 p.m.) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 1. Curriculum vitae with specific documentation of successful experience in education program evaluation. PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: EDUCATION Psychology Home (901) 755-6654 Office (901) 678-3413 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Graduate Major: Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, 1995-2001 Director, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, 2001 - present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present 16. Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, March 16. 1999. 18. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters SCHOLARSHIP Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~' 45-71. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8_, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success For All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed At Risk, i, 29-54. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 3 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). A \"reflection\" at mile three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 151-161. Ross, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success For All. Psychology in the Schools, ~..1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development,~ 5-20. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal oflntercultural education, 9_(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, lQ(2), 129-150. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J.E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3'd ed.). New York, tN: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 1(2), 111-126. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teaching and Change,~' 5-9. Nath, L.R., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementarJ students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1]_, 323-346. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 4 Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies bas been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and sumrnative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). 2. Capacity and capability to perform education program evaluations including a writing sample (see appendix for writing sample). The Center for Research in Educational Policy (referred to in this document as the Center or CREP) is funded by the State of Tennessee as one of five Centers of Excellence located at The University of Memphis. The mission of the Center is to implement a research agenda associated with educational policies and practices in the preK-12 public schools of Tennessee and the nation, and to disseminate research findings so that they inform decisions made by educational practitioners and policymakers. Since 19.89, the Center bas served as a mechanism for mobilizing community and university resources to address educational problems and to meet the I University's commitment to primary and secondary schools. Functioning as a part of the College of Education, the Center seeks to accomplish its mission through a series of investigations conducted by Center personnel, College and University faculty, and graduate students. The Center's research agenda is developed through analysis of persistent or emerging issues in schools and their communities, changes occurring in teacher education programs, and recommendations from educational authorities. In order to plan and conduct inquiries relevant to issues associated with public schools, the Center supports research reflecting the following characteristics: potential for contributing to the solution of educational policy and practice issues\nan applied research and development focus\ncollaborations and partnerships with schools and other external organizations\ninterdisciplinary research teams\nmultiple modes of inquiry\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 5 immediate and long-range planning\nand creation of databases to foster secondary analyses. Research outcomes are intended to provide a knowledge base for use by educational practitioners and policymakers by providing insight into the complexities of educational phenomena and offering recommendations for action. Through work in schools for over a decade, the Center has contributed to Tennessee policy decisions regarding teacher preparation and licensure, school governance and site-based decision making, and public school reforms. Additionally, the Center has gained national recognition for its contribution to discussions of issues such as reform of teacher education, educational equity, educational technology, school reform and restructuring, urban and multicultural education, interventions for at-risk students, and using formative evaluation methods for school improvement decision-making. In summary, the Center for Research in Educational Policy has extensive experience in evaluating diverse educational programs. The Center has developed numerous valid and reliable evaluation tools that have been effectively used by hundreds of schools and districts to examine the extent to which programmatic goals are being realized, and also fotmaking data-based improvement decisions. The Center's professional expertise, available evaluation resources, and proximity to the Little Rock School District all make it likely that CREP can assist the District in complying with the court order related to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. Indication of the amount of available time between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 for consulting and active work on this project. Dr. Steven Ross and staff from the Center for Research in Educational Policy can initially commit to ten hours per week for this project. This commitment is flexible, however, and can be negotiated based on the needs of the Little Rock School District. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 6 4. Two professional references who can attest to quality of work and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. RickBasoin Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development SERVE 915 Northridge St., 2nd floor Greensboro, NC. 27403-2112 (800) 755-3277 RBASOM@serve.org Doris Redfield Director of Research AEL P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV. 25325-1348 (800) 624-9120 redfield@ael.org 5. Pending Lawsuits. None. IC !3: C Ill ll ::, ~ Ill., ..a r ro ~ 5ro1 c, ::, C: rt i: r. I \u0026gt;en lrl en., 0 C n....: : Ill Q 1\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 7 Appendix Writing Sample 1 1 The writing sample is an executive summary. The full report will be provided upon request. PROGRESS AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND SUCCESS FOR ALL IN TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis www .memphis.edu/crep July 30, 2002 :J:\u0026gt;'lll t/l rl t/l 0 C (l ::i I ~- Ill Q rt 1m Progress and Options Regarding the Implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo Public Schools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Background The major goals of this research study were to evaluate the outcomes and provide recommendations on the implementation of two improvement models being used by multiple schools in the Toledo Public School (TPS) district. The district has taken bold steps to turn around some of its lowest performing schools, including the investment of about $2 million over the past four years to adopt two research-based comprehensive school reform models with solid national track records of effectiveness. These models, Direct Instruction (DI) and Success for All (SF A), have been implemented in a total of nine Toledo elementary schools. The design and methodology of the study, to be described below, was oriented towards answering the following research questions.  How do \"program\" (i.e., DI and SFA) schools compare to \"control\" (i.e., similar) schools in student achievement outcomes over time?  How well are program schools implementing their chosen models?  How do program schools compare to control schools in measures of school climate that make a difference in program implementation or student achievement?  What are key stakeholder reactions (e.g., district leaders, principals and teachers) to the effectiveness of the programs and their schools' ability to fully implement the programs?  Which factors appear to differentiate between program schools that are most and least successful in raising student achievement? Study Design The design of this project relies on a number of different approaches to determine program implementation. The findings and options for action reported here draw on multiple data sources consisting of:  Comparisons of student achievement results at program schools against similar TPS schools\n Targeted observations of the extent and quality of DI and SPA implementation\no Interviews of district and union leadership\n School climate inventories administered to teachers at program and control schools\n Teacher questionnaires administered to teachers teaching reading at program and control schools\n Focus groups comprised of program teachers that explored issues related to program implementation\nand  Interviews of principal and building representative. Nine schools participated in the evaluation, including three DI schools that began implementation in 1997-1998\nthree DI schools that began implementation in 1999-2000, one that began in 2001-2002\nand two SFA schools that began implementation in 1999-2000. (Note: As data was not yet available, the DI school that began implementation this year was not considered in the analysis of student achievement.)  For the student achievement study, the comparison sample consisted of all other (not SF A and DI) schools in the District, the scores for which (as explained below) were adjusted for school and student characteristics.  For the implementation analyses, experts in the school district selected matched control schools for DI and SF A sites based on prior achievement, SES factors, and ethnicity. There were six DI control schools and two SF A control schools. Again, the DI school that began implementation this year did not have a control school. Results Achievement Analysis Student achievement data was gathered from all available sources, including the Ohio proficiency test and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Student results on these standardized tests in schools implementing DI and SF A were examined as well as results for all other (not DI and SFA) district schools. Results were compared for program and control schools and the analysis revealed the following. Overall Results. DI and SF A program schools included in the evaluation posted student achievement gains nearly equal to what would be expected of other Toledo schools serving similar student populations. DI Results.  Achievement gains tended to improve in DI schools from 1999 to 2001 in 2nd and 6th grade, but were still slightly below what would be expected given the pf)verty rate and pretest levels of the schools.  In 2001, DI schools as a whole produced a statistically significant negative effect for fourth grade.  Among the schools that implemented DI in 1997-1998, Mt. Vernon second grade students tended to post higher achievement gains than would be expected. Fourth and sixth grade achievement gains improved at Mt. Vernon from moderately below to roughly equal to the district average. Among 1999-2000 DI schools, student achievement improved substantially at King, particularly in 2nd and 6th grade. Second grade student performance declined precipitously at Warren from 1999 to 2001. 2 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ m 5l m ::, rt- ,~\u0026gt; 0 (') ~- Ill rtm SF A Results.  In both SF A schools, students at each grade level made achievement gains at a rate nearly equal to the district average for each year considered. School Climate Inventory (SCI) The main purpose of the School Climate Inventory (SCI) is to assess impacts of reform initiatives in relation to seven dimensions logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school organizational climates. 1 The inventory contains 49 items and responses are scored using a five-point scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Overall Results. SCI results showed no unusual positive or negative trends for any of the program or control groups, with the exception of one of the two SF A sites that had negative school climate results. DI Results. DI teachers reacted comparably to their control counterparts. SF A Results. SF A teachers reacted significantly more negatively than did the control teachers on three out of the seven dimensions (Environment, Leadership, and Order). One of the SF A schools bad very positive school climate results, while the other SF A site bad negative school climate results compared to both the controls and to national norms. Reading Teacher Survey (RTS) All teachers of reading at each DI, SF A, and control school were asked to complete the RTS, which contains 20 items teachers respond to using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree ~). Items identified the specific program in the case of DI and SF A, but referred generically to the \"reading program\" for the control schools. Among the areas assessed were professional development, impacts on students, changes in teaching, support for the program, effects on technology use, and involvement of parents and the community. Overall Results. Findings for both DI and SF A sites indicated significant favorable teacher attitudes toward the DI and SF A reading programs relative to control group impressions of the district's general reading program. DI Results. DI teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward their reading program than did control teachers of their schools' approaches. Significant differences were obtained on 12 out of 20 items, with the largest effects indicated for: (1) external guidance and support\n(2) 1 The dimension on the Environment addresses pride in the school and caring about others\nthe Order dimension focuses on student behavior, discipline, and attendance\nthe Leadership dimension deals with the degree to which the administration is supportive, communicative, and effective\nInvolvement concerns the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the school\nthe dimension on Instruction considers the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and implemented\nthe Expectations dimension is the extent to which students are expected to learn and be responsible\nand the Collaboration dimension is the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. 3 the reading program changing classroom learning activities a great deal\n(3) external professional development being valuable\nand, ( 4) student achievement being positively impacted. SF A Results. SF A teachers were significantly more positive than their control counterparts on 13 of the 20 items. The largest effects were obtained for items indicating a more positive teacher evaluation of: (1) the guidance provided by the school facilitator, support team, or others\n(2) changes in learning activities due to the reading program\n(3) the school's plan for evaluating the reading program\n( 4) the value of the professional development\nand, the involvement of parents. Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders ( district leadership, union leadership, and a school board member), principals of schools implementing DI and SF A as well as Control schools, building level union representatives, and DI and SFA school facilitators. Teacher focus groups of about one-hour in length were held to provide background information about schools' usage of their selected programs to support more informed interpretations of outcome measures such as student achievement. Questions addressed teachers' experiences with and reactions to program implementation with regard to such areas as program appropriateness, resources, professional development, and outcomes. The principal at each of the nine schools participated in a one-hour, on-site interview. Interview questions addressed the principal's experiences and reactions to the program implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, faculty, and parents/community. Interviews with control school principals were conducted via telephone, using the same instruments. Results from DI Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents (principals, teachers, and teacher union building representatives), the strengths of DI appear to be in the primary grades, especially with regard to phonics. The model also appears to them to be highly positive for special needs children, attributed to DI's structure, repetition, and appropriate ability grouping. Weaknesses in DI were perceived in the intermediate grades, including a lack of instruction in comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. Implementation, according to one teacher focus group, has gone well in the lower grades, but as reported by one building representative, the program lacks support among intermediate grade teachers. Almost all principals, building representatives, and teacher focus groups perceived a positive impact of DI on reading and interest in reading. High student mobility was identified as one of the biggest obstacles to DI implementation, since new students enter the school with no DI experience. Large class size was mentioned as another perceived impediment to implementation. A third impediment reported at some schools was high teacher turnover. In some schools, boredom and lack of interest during DI was identified as an issue, although others report increases in student motivation and enthusiasm about reading. 4 3: Ill ::, ill \"\" IQ (D s ~ g rt ~ :t\u0026gt;'P. tll \" ~ a n  I-' Ill ,~ Most respondents viewed initial DI training as positive. Several noted that training was inadequate for new/transfer teachers. Model developers appeared to have inconsistent contact with the schools. Across all schools, there appeared to be a need for improved district training and support, which was reported to be minimal and unspecific. In summary, teachers and principals in DI schools perceive the program to be very effective, especially in grades K-3, at teaching larger numbers of students to read. Teachers and principals indicate that students are more motivated and interested in reading and that they see progress in their classrooms on a regular basis. There appears to be a weakness in the training provided by model consultants and the district, particularly for new teachers entering the program buildings. Results from SFA Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents, SF A implementation has been improving, but has been highly dependent on the rate of teacher turnover. The most effective elements of the SF A model were perceived to be the 90-minute block of reading time, ability grouping for reading, the use of phonics and tutoring at the primary levels, and program consistency from grade to grade. The least effective SFA elements were reported as the lack of nonfiction materials (an issue identified at both \"program\" and \"control\" schools), limited writing emphasis, time constraints, large class sizes, the scripted lessons, and the lack of alignment to Ohio standards. Focus groups in both schools perceived that SFA supports cooperative and team-based approaches. Other SF A classroom changes identified include smaller reading groups, flexible levels, individualized learning, interdisciplinary and project-based instruction, improved partnering, and more student enthusiasm for learning. Staff reported that special\"needs SF A students are ability-grouped according to reading level, and are given extra tutoring if necessary. I In summary, staff observed that students in both SF A schools appear to be more motivated to read. SF A schools reported that, according to SF A assessments, more students are reading on level, and students are reading more often. SF A principals reported increasing proficiency scores, although teachers in one school reported that test scores are down: One SF A school also noted improved communication, stronger student relationships, and fewer discipline problems during SF A implementation. In both SF A schools, teacher collaboration and teacher collegiality has reportedly improved, despite high teacher turnover in one of the schools. According to the focus groups, professional development and SF A training have been helpful overall at both schools. However, follow-up training and training for new teachers were viewed to be inadequate. Targeted Observations Independent, out-of-state consultants with expertise in the implementation of DI and SF A conducted site visits to the Toledo schools implementing these models. Targeted observations for each model follow. 5 IQ xi::: 0J 0J ::, 0J 1- -0 ro~I s ('I) ::, Cl rt C: 0 :x:,. 0J en rt en .... 00 0 ::i I-' 0J QI rt ('I) DI Targeted Observations In-depth observations of Toledo's DI schools by outside experts in the program indicate a rather inconsistent and incomplete level of implementation of the components of the DI model that are critical for accelerating student progress to reach grade-level performance. These expert observers noted that implementation is not yet geared to produce significantly more than a year's progress each year so that children can close the \"academic gap.\" On an encouraging note, the observers reported that school staff nearly unanimously identified a significant reduction in the number of children who are nonreaders, and a significant increase in the number of children who are encountering success during reading instruction. Specific recommendations to improve DI implementations are as follows: 1. Place more emphasis on accelerating student performance in kindergarten and first grade. 2. Increase reading instructional time to accelerate and expand student reading proficiency. 3. Provide children who are functioning below grade level with daily extra DI reading instruction. 4. Provide for structured reading in a wide variety of materials. 5. Place more emphasis on implementation of the DI language curricula. 6. Provide professional development to enable all teachers to reach high levels of proficiency in teaching DI. 7. Provide training and support for building principals to take a more active role in supporting implementation of DI model. 8. Provide more of a sense of urgency from the district level to ensure implementations are producing desired levels of student learning. This recommendation further stres,ses the need to establish a district-wide DI coordinator to monitor implementation and 'ensure consistency and quality in uses of DI across schools. 1 SF A Targeted Observations According to the SF A expert who visited the program schools, implementation in Toledo is uneven. While observations revealed that implementation of the SF A program is generally above average in curricular areas and both schools provided the requisite 90-minutes of reading instruction each day, several concerns exist. Implementation of the \"Reading Wings\" reading component in one school was below average. Both schools are below average in family support implementation and one school needs to improve in the area of teacher training. 6 ' tO 3:C:: Ill Ill ::, Ill 1- IO (I) I\u0026lt; El (I)~ ::, c:1 rt Cl \u0026gt;en r en 0 (\"l I-' Ill rt I (I) In terms of student performance, based on their analysis of SF A-provided student assessments, both schools report approximately 90% of first graders reading at or above grade level and close to 70% at or above grade in most second through sixth grades.2 According to the expert observer, teachers at each school appear to be working together to successfully implement the program in the face of implementation challenges. For instance, one site has been without a permanent facilitator for most of the 2001-2002 school year. The other SF A site has two facilitators, however, program implementation is challenging there as well due to the large student population and other conditions. The observer noted that the district appears to lack attention and focus to ensure that high quality program implementation is o.ccurring at each SF A site. Specific recommendations to improve SF A implementation are as follows: 1. Improve the alignment of SFA with the Ohio Proficiency Standards. 2. Ensure that adequate program facilitation is provided. 3. Improve the quality of professional training that SFA teachers receive. 4. Strengthen the implementation of SF A's writing component. 5. Implement fully the family support program component of the SFA model. Options for Action Our research team's goal in conducting this analysis was to support the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders in Toledo to engage in effective, evidence-based action to improve student achievement. We hope this report will provide the District the information it needs to weigh its options regarding the future implementation of two research-based, research-proven reading/school improvement programs. This report does not seek to promote or discredit either program or any alternative approach, or to call into question the well-intended and hard work of many district administrators and school staff. Rather, it lays out the available faqts, analyzes them and, on that basis, provides the following, forward-looking options. The District has several options regarding the future of Direct Instruction and Success for All in these schools. They range from the abandonment of the models entirely to their full, sustained, and potentially expanded implementation. At one end of this spectrum, before abandoning the models completely, the District would have to answer two key questions: 2 This statement on grade level performance refers to an SF A student assessment. This information contradicts other student assessment data provided by the Toledo Public Schools Office of Research showing that on the district assessment one SFA site has about 50% of its first graders and 60% of second graders performing on grade level while the other site has about 80% of first and second graders performing at grade level. 7 1. Have we done all that we could at the district and school level to fully implement these two programs in order to achieve successful student outcomes? 2. If we do decide to drop these programs, what do we have in hand, ready to go, that will produce better results? Given the observations detailed in our report, it would appear that the District could talce several more steps to assure high-quality implementations of these models. Furthermore, while the district may develop equally, or more effective, alternative approaches for raising reading achievement in these program schools, and perhaps across the entire district, no such option currently exists. Therefore, the district may wish to explore ways in which these programs could continue to operate-for a limited period of time, and with increased support and monitoring. The programs that the District has adopted have demonstrated success in many similar settings across the country. Therefore, given the right circumstances they may yet yield the desired-but as yet unattained---outcomes in Toledo. Based on the results of this study and our experiences as consultants and researchers in the area of comprehensive school reform, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by the TPS School Board and Superintendent. Improving Model Implementation this School Year. In the event the District decides to continue to operate these two models, for the 2002-2003 school year, there are a number of actions that should be considered in order to improve implementation. The District should:  Carefully review the detailed findings of the targeted observations provided in this report and make every possible suggested change in implementation. In the future, the district should monitor and act on the information provided by DI and SF A ongoing implementation checks and consider supplementing this data with other formative evaluation tools.  Establish a support, accountability and monitoring structure at the district level with one administrator charged with oversight of these models. This would ensure an ongoing focus on providing the support required for success. This individual-knowledgeable in the research-based programs and, preferably, about literacy instruction as well.-would oversee the quality of implementation across sites. The administrator would work closely with principals and school staff to meet their needs, and should have the authority and budgetary power to: a. Identify and oversee high quality providers of technical assistance, professional development, and supplies and materials\nb. Help identify and support school-based facilitators of the model\nc. Malce certain that materials and supplies are provided in a timely fashion to appropriate school staff\nd. Set and keep a master schedule for training new teachers, current teachers, and school-based program facilitators that complements District-provided training\nand 8 I-' 0J rt Cl) e. Increase principal involvement in and preparation for implementing models.  Negotiate and hold models and consultants to clear, transparent, performance-based agreements that specify what it is the District expects of the model provider(s), and consequences for success and failure. Improving Medium and Long Term Model Implementation. At the other end of the spectrum, indefinitely continuing and/or expanding implementation, would not appear to be a wise option given the limited academic success so far experienced, and the program implementation improvement needs noted in this report. Despite a national track record of success, unless a program can demonstrate substantial, long-term success in raising student achievement for Toledo's children, the program may not be the best option for meeting student needs. The District, and program advocates, must answer some tough questions before the programs are deemed worthy of long term support, including: 1. Why are we seeing less than adequate student progress in some of the program schools implementing these models? How can we track student achievement more accurately? 2. What is our capacity, interest, and commitment to fully implementing these models? Does the continuation of these models best serve the interest of Toledo's children? 3. How can we better monitor and assess the implementation of the models at the District level? 4. In the long term, what are the better solutions to meet the educational needs of Toledo's children? Other, intermediate and perhaps more viable choices exist for the District. For example, it might decide to choose a path of cautious optimism and allow the implementation of these models to continue for one or two more years-pending more results, and with additional supports. In our view, all schools wanting to continue their selected models should be given at least one year to show tangible progress. Presently, teacher support for the models being used is fairly strong at most schools. There are also community stakeholders who are both active and vocal in their advocacy of their chosen model. Using the present, third-party evaluation as a starting point for requiring tangible progress to be demonstrated within the next school year should present ostensibly a fair and reasonable plan to all stakeholder groups. The District should consider making subsequent policy decisions about model continuance on a case-by-case (school specific) basis. Even if, for example, the District chose to install a research-based, districtwide reading curriculum and approach, a decision could be made at that time whether the results at any given school were sufficient to justify allowing the particular school to continue with its current program. Some districts have chosen to allow schools to pursue individual program options, as long as they can demonstrate performance success, and prepare their students for further success in case they transfer, or when they graduate to their next grade level. 9 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ Cl) s Cl) ::, rt :i,,i tll tll .. 0 C C'l::, I-' Ill Ir 1~ Specific Options for DI Implementation. Although some DI schools have had sufficient time to achieve full implementation and raise student achievement, applications of DI still appear to be weak in many critical areas. Schools and the District need to show in the coming year that they are able and willing to achieve the effective program implementation required to significantly improve student achievement. Otherwise, there is little reason to believe that results will be more successful than shown in the present analysis. Over time the District might consider reducing the number of DI sites based on the different schools' performance and the quantity of teachers willing to make a long-term commitment to implementing the program. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobility. Also, the District might consider whether to limit DI to the lower (preK-3) grades and phase out implementation in the intermediate grades ( 4-6). Alternatively, the District should provide substantially better and more consistent training to teachers working with the older primary students. The DI model has a track record of effectiveness in the intermediate grades, but only when proper, regular teacher training is conducted and a literature-rich student environment is cultivated. Specific Options for SF A Implementation. In the case of SF A, more time is needed for schools to gain experience in implementing the model. On the whole, SF A implementation is uneven and the district must pay more attention to implementing the model with fidelity. Before scaling up with any further SF A sites, the district should ensure full program implementation at both current sites. Particular attention must be paid to placing a trained SFA facilitator at each site, providi~g adequate professional development for all staff, and fully implementing the family support component of the model. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobili~ The district should expect mixed student achievement results across SF A sites if implementation is not improved. Conclusion. Several years ago, the Toledo Public Schools initiated an exemplary pilot effort to implement two reading improvement programs that have among country's best track records of effectiveness in raising student achievement. The leadership of the District was to be commended then, for making the commitment to take on \"evidence-based\" reform. It has continued that commitment by commissioning this impartial, rigorous, and thorough examination of the results to date of those decisions. While there is room for disappointment that student outcomes are less than anticipated, and concern that program implementation needs to be improved, the District's reliance on following the trail of evidence to appropriate conclusions should provide hope that-whichever options are taken in the coming months and years-the result will be a better education for Toledo's children. 10 Quality Education and Management Associates A CONSULTANT COMPANY P.O. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net Dr. Kathy K. Franklin, Principal Consultant Dr. Larry McNeal, Principal Consultant Dr. Tom E. C. Smith, Principal Consultant Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Principal Consultant RECE:VED ./'/2pn7 DEC - 4 2002 / /,\n11/- /).:..I, 'v ( v, .f. OfACEOf DESEGREGATION IIONiTORJNG I \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is one hundred percent wrong. QEMA knows the right solution.\" cfQ...uahut cgdcawuv QM\n~ ~~ A CONSULTANT FIRM P. 0. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net November 4, 2002 Darral Paradis, CPPB, C.P.M. Director, Procurement and Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis: 1bis letter is to introduce the consulting finn of Quality Education \u0026amp; Management Associates (QEMA) of Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the firm are university faculty with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Firm members have actively consulted with public school districts, private businesses, and institutions of higher education in a variety of areas. Members of the firm are offering their services to the Little Rock School District in the area of program evaluation. In particular, members of the firm are able and prepared to assist Little Rock School District personnel in evaluating the various programs outlined in the recent school desegregation court ruling. We are looking forward to assisting the Little Rock School District as it moves forward to address the program evaluation issue. Sincerely, r'..__ 'L~\\ ~ Dr. Larry McNeal Principal Consultant 2 1. Curriculum Vitae Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) Vitae A summary of Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) members' evaluation activities are listed below. Dr. Kathy K Franklin 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 1998 to 2000, Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Adult First Year Experience course (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Learning Communities Program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997, Evaluator, Learning Community Experiment (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) Dr. Larry McN eal 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2000 to 2001, Evaluator, Little Rock Scliool District Charter Elementary School (Little Rock School District) 2001 to 2002, Evaluator, Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School 1998 to 2000, Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997 to 1998 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Gales Public School District (Galesburg, Illinois) 1997, Evaluator, Title 1: Summer School Evaluation - Peoria Public School District (Peoria, Illinois) 3 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Visually (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Deaf (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) Dr. Tom E. C. Smith 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project -Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp 1999 to Present, National Evaluation System 2001, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District Dr. Gordon E. Watts 2002 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2002, Program Evaluator, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (Delta Teacher Education Consortium) 2000, Program Evaluator, Higher Education Consortium for Careers in Early Childhood (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1992 to present, Consultant/Evaluator, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 1998 Program Reviewer (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education) The curriculum vitae for individual QEMA members are in Appendix A 4 2. Capacity And Capability To Perform Program Evaluations. QEMA has both the capacity and capability to perform program evaluation within the timelines identified in the recent school desegregation court ruling. The capacity and capability of QEMA is imbedded in its structure as a research based consulting firm with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Principal Consultants of QEMA have conducted a variety of types of program evaluations at the public school, community college, and university levels. The unique backgrounds and experiences of the principals enable them to bring together a wide spectrum of program evaluation models and statistical methodologies in order to create a program evaluation that is specifically tailored to their client's needs. - Currently, firm members are engaged in conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Alternative Classroom Experience Project for the Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp in Little Rock, Arkansas. The project provides educational services to at-risk elementary children from the Little Rock School and the Pulaski County Special School Districts. The experience acquired from this venture enhances QEMA's understanding and ability to provide program evaluation services to public school districts in Central Arkansas. A copy of a program evaluation completed by a QEMA principal consultant in Appendix B 5 3. Time Available For Consultation In response to the timeline requirements, QEMA consultant principals can be available between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 on the following dates. The actual dates are subjected to mutual agreement between Little Rock School District personnel and QEMA personnel. Dates after March 1, 2003 are also available upon request. November 11-15: November 18-22 November 25-29 Pecember 2-6 December 9-13 December 16-20 January 6-10 January 13-17 January 20-24 January 27-31 February 3-7 February 10-14 February 17-21 February 24-28 4. Professional References A. QEMAGroup: Sanford Tollette Director Joseph Pfeifer Camp 5512 Ferndale Co I Little Rock, AR 72208 501.821.3714 Sanford@pfeifercamp.com B. Dr. Kathy Franklin Dr. Thea Zidonowitz Hoeft Division Chief for University College Director of Academic Advising Coordinator of First Year Experience University of Arkansas at Little Rock 501.569.3386 tmhoeft@ualr.edu 6 C. Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Jean Brown Principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Galesburg, Illinois 309. 691.8023 343.0409 D. Dr. Tom Smith 5. Pending Lawsuits There are no lawsuits or any other legal actions pending on Quality Education and Management Associates as a.consulting company or any of its principal consultants as individuals. I 7 Appendix A Curriculum Vitaes For Dr. Kathy K. Franklin Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Tom E.C. Smith Dr. Gordon E. Watts 8 I EDUCATION KATHY K. FRANKLIN, Ed.D. Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0302 kfranldi@bamaed.ua.edu 205-348-2470 Kathy K. Franklin 1 Ed.D. Educational Leadership with a concentration in higher education. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1996. Dissertation: Exploring the Congruency Between Student Satisfaction and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Utilized a qualitative research design with a focus group method of inquiry to explore the congruency between criteria used by students to determine satisfaction with the higher education experience and criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to investigate the validity of using student satisfaction assessment as a definition of institutional effectiveness. M.B.A. Concentration in marketing and economics. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1991.  B.S. Commerce and Business Administration with a concentration in marketing. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1977. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy\nand Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, 2002 to present. Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2002. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, governance and public policy in higher education, finance of higher education, leadership theories in higher education, and qualitative research methods. Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2001. I Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1996 to 1999. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, overview of higher education in the United States, college teaching problems and issues, designing a college curricula, qualitative research methods, dissertation seminar\nand advanced research methods. Team Instructor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Taught the following courses in collaboration with senior faculty from the ELP A department: Professional Needs of Individuals and Groups\nGraduate Internship Program\nand Theories of Educational Administration. Instructor, Kathy K. Franklin 2  East Tennessee State University, College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1992 to 1996. Full-time Temporary faculty status -Taught Principles of Marketing, Sales Force Management, Retail Management, Introduction to Business, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate students.  Milligan College, Adult Education Program, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1994 to 1996. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught Marketing Communications in the adult accelerated M.B.A. program.  Northeast State Technical Community College, Blountville, Tennessee\nJanuary 1992 to August 1992. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught courses in business economics, finance, and marketing.  Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee\nJune 1992 to October 1992. Adjunct faculty status -Taught graduate courses in strategic marketing management to adult students in the accelerated M.B.A. program. Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean, College of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee\nMay 1995 to August 1995. Worked with the Associate Dean to prepare for the 1995 NCATE visit. Assistant Director, Bell South Exemplary Superintendent Training (BEST) Program, East Tennessee State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Johnson City, Tennessee\nAugust 1994 to May 1995. Coordinated all activities related to the professional development of forty Tennessee educational leaders in preparation for a future superintendency position. The BEST program was a collaborative effort with the Bell South Foundation and East Tennessee State University. PUBLICATIONS Journal and Newsletter Publications Franklin, K.K. (2002). Qualitative coding: The allegory of the quilt. Research in the Schools 9(1 ), 65-71. Franklin, K.K. (2001, winter). The \"Mikey\" phenomenon: Reflections of a first year chair. The Department Chair 11(3), 26-28. Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R.J., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S.R., \u0026amp; Satkowski, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. _Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 12(1), 50-61. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research 1 (2), i 169-184. Franklin, K.K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition 12(2), 33-60. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (Spring, 2000). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 313-3\nW. Franklin, K.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for metropolitan student satisfaction. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 10(3), 81-88. Franklin, K.K. (1999). Forging the bonds: learning communities on an urban campus. The First-Year Experience Newsletter 11(3), 8.  Franklin, K.K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators describe the effectiveness of the metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 9(3), 9-18. Manuscripts in Press Kathy K. Franklin 3 Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., \u0026amp; Robertson, B.E. (in press). Conversations with mTreatnrosiptioolnit.a n university freshmen. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Manuscripts in Blind Review Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002). I am not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring the Experiences 'of College Students Diagnosed with AD/HD. The Journal of Research on Learning Diabilities. Manuscripts in Progress Franklin, K.K. A Tale of Four Freshman Friends: The Urban University Experience. Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Responsibilities for the Effective Metropolitan University Department Chair. Franklin, K.K. Assessing a Freshman Year Experience Program. Franklin, K.K. The Freshman Year Experience: Increasing Confidence in the Ability to Succeed Crum, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Mentoring Female Graduate Students. Kondrick, L. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Predicting Success for Female Graduate Students Enrolled in Math, Science, and Engineering Programs. Marvin, USn. i\u0026amp;ve rFsritayn. klin, K.K. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Students in Transition at an Urban Franklin, K.K., Conners, N.A., \u0026amp; Perry, S.N. Teaching Naturalistic Inquiry: A Constructivist Approach. ERIC Publications Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. An Analysis of College Students with AD/HD at a Private and Public Institution in Arkansas using a Grounded Theory Approach. (submitted, November 2002) Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERJC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 757). Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center E(EDR I4C3)5 C7l6e2a)ri.n ghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; Satkowsk.i-Harper, T. (November, 1999). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Reference number IRO 19901. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. (Report No. HE 030 940). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERJC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 747). Kathy K. Franklin 4 Chamberlin, G.D. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1997). Implications of the baby boom echo in arkansas. (Report No. HE 030 872). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 610). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. {1995). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 199). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 200). Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1994). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 694). Franklin, K.K. (1994). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 695). Workbooks Published for Conference Workshops Franklin, K.K., (1999). The search for a needle in a haystack, Part II: The art of coding. Workbook published for the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999). Assessing the service-learning component in a freshman year experience course. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1999). Inspiration and perspiration: Combining service-\nlearning with the freshman year experience. Workbook published for the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Nawarat, P. (1998). The search for a needle in a haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workbook published for the annual meetipg of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. i Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998) Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook pSupbrilnisghse, dA Rfo. r the annual meeting of the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Franklin, K. K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (June, 1998). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. PRESENTATIONS International Kathy K. Franklin 5 Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, April). An analysis of two postsecondary learning environments: Learning communities and freshmen year experience courses. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Conners, N.A. (1999, April). Mentoring female graduate students in a qualitative research methods course. Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. National Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R., Edwards-Sharer, P., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp;  Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001, October), Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching Qualitative Research. Poster Session at the Nursing Research Conference sponsored by Gamma Xi Chapter, Beta Chi Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the University of Arkansas for Medical Services College ofNursing, and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Nursing Service. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K, Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, October). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Boise, ID. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, June). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, March). Inspiration and perspiration: _ Combining service-learning and the freshmen year experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1998, November). Developing the assessment strategy for a linked course learning corf-zmunity. Poster session at the Assessment Institute Best Practices Fair, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Indianapolis, IN. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1998, November). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, IL. Franklin, K.K. (1998, June). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the 1998 American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. Franklin, K.K. (1998, February). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.  Grant funded research presented at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. San Antonio, TX. Franklin, K.K. (1996, April). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Dissertation research presented at the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration. New York City, NY. Re~ional Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November) .. College Students with AD/HD. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Kathy K. Franklin 6 Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November). Exploring Department Chair Roles in Metropolitan Universities. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Hoeft, T.M., Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (2002, April). Conversations with First Year Students: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Arkansas Academic Advising Network. Jonesboro, AR. Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Peny, S.N., Purtle, D.K., Roberston, B.E. (2001, November). Conversations with metropolitan freshmen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack, Part II: The art of coding. PWooinrkt sCholepa rp, rAesLe.n ted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Conners, N. A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; .Satkowski-Harper, T. (1999, November). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Conners, N. A., Edleston, R., Marvin, S., Oberste, C., Routen, I.I., \u0026amp; Satkowski-Harper (1999, November). Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching qualitative research. Poster pArLes. ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Sotith Educational Research Association. Point Clear, Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998, October). Assessing a learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Springs, AR. Franklin, K.K., Nawarat, P., \u0026amp; Ramirez, C. (1998,\nNovember). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., Chamberlin, G.D., Kennedy, R.L., \u0026amp; Sewall, AM. (1997, November). A dissertation survival Mkite. mPpahpise,r TprNe.s ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997, November). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Memphis, TN. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Chamberlin, G.D. (1997, November). Implications of the baby boom echo in the midMsouemth. p hiPsa, pTeNr p. resented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Kathy K. Franklin 7 Chamberlin, G.D., \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1997, November). The baby boom echo: Implications for two-year colleges in Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Association of Two- Y ear Colleges. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1997, February). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1996, November). Exploring the definition of institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Bartell, N.O. (1996, November). How to survive a qualitative dissertation. Training session- for graduate students at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. (1995, November). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995, November). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1995, March). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K. (1995, March). Relationship between student satisfaction and assessing program effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. I Franklin, K.K. (1994, November). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey administered at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Education Research Association. Nashville, TN. Local Franklin, K.K. (2000, January). Faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology in the metropolitan. university classroom. Presentation of research findings to the University of Arkansas AatR L. ittle Rock (UALR) Strategic Planning Committee on Instructional Technology. Little Rock, Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.\nPresentation of research findings to the UALR Retention Committee. Little Rock, AR. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the University of Arkansas Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, August). Assessing learning communities. Faculty development workshop at UALR. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the UALR Faculty Senate. Little Rock, AR. Kathy K. Franklin 8 Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the staff of the UALR Office of Educational and Student Services. Little Rock, AR. SPONSORED RESEARCH Evaluator for the Freshman Year Experience program sponsored by a grant from the Office of Educational and Student Services at UALR. Completed a two-year student learning assessment for the PEA W 1300 courses based on the six learning objectives identified for the course by the PEAW 1300 Curriculum Committee. The assessment included a freshmen profile survey administered to approximately 1100 students, a freshman attitude survey administered to approximately 900 students, a service-learning evaluation, and course portfolio evaluation (n = 161). Data provided evidence to support that the six learning objectives were accomplished. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator for the Adult First Year Experience course sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant. 1998 to 1999.   Evaluator for the fall and spring, 1998-1999 learning communities sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant.. 1998 to 1999. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and four focus group sessions with students on the University of North Texas campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction and the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a Coalition of Metropolitan and Urban Universities. 1997. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and seven focus group sessions with students on the. University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction ai\nid , the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a UALR Faculty Development Grant. 1997. Evaluator for a learning community experiment, conducted during the 1997 fall semester, linking three freshmen core courses: speech communication, rhetoric and writing, and anthropology sponsored by an UALR Assessment Grant. 1997. ' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service to the Profession Continuous Service Member, Editorial Board, Research in the Schools, Mid-Sou.th Educational Research Association. 2002 to present. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina Press. 1999 to present Member, Editorial Board, The Qualitative Report. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRJindex.html. 2001 to present. Referee, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. 2001 to present. Research Coordinator, Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Responsible for managing the Ernest Lynton Research Grant Program and Paige E. Mulhollan Dissertation Award Program. 1999 to 2002 2001 Kathy K. Franklin 9 Panel Member, Plenary Session, Developmental Education - Issues and Expectations, Arkansas Association for Developmental Education 2001 Fall Conference. Hot Springs, AR: October, 2001. 2000 Accepted an invitation to serve on the Strategic Study Committee for Roanoke College, Roanoke Virginia as a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Visiting Team. November, 2000 . Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2003 President Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2002 Vice-President and President-Elect, 2002 Chair, Outstanding Paper and Dissertation Awards Committee Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2001 Site Coordinator, 2001 Annual Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas Member, Program Review Committee for the 2001 annual meeting Representative-at-Large, Board of Directors Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2000 Nominated by Board of Directors to serve as Secretary/Treasurer for MSERA. 2000 Site coordinator for the 2001 annual meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Member, Program Review Committee for the 2000 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1999 Elected by members of the Board of Directors to serve as a Representative-at-Large for MSERA. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1999 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1998 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1998 annual meeting. Discussant, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, Discussion on Teaching and Learning. November, 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Early Childhood Education. November 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Teaching and Leaming. November, 1998. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1997 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. .. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1997 annual meeting. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Training session for graduate students titled: Life After Graduation: More Things You Need to Know About the Job Market. November 1997. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Training session for doctoral candidates titled: Dissertation Survival Kit. November 1997. g r. i ~ rt 01 .r.t. g Kathy K. Franklin I 0 Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, presentation of the 1997 Outstanding Paper awards. November 1997. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1995 to 1996 Member, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Higher Education. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Test-Ta.long. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. November, 1995. Service to The University of Alabama Member, Department of Educational Leadership, Technology, and Policy Studies Assessment Committee. 2002 to present. Service to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Member, UALR Department of Excellence Selection Committee. Jan. 2002 to April 2002 Service to 2001 Completed a two-year assessment of the PEA W 1300 courses at UALR for the Office of Educational and Student Services. The final assessment report included a detailed profile of approximately 1100 UALR freshmen emolled from the fall 1998 to spring 2000. The report also included the findings from a pre- and post-administered attitude survey, evaluation of course portfolios, and evaluation of service-learning activities. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC v.9. Vice-Chair, UALR Graduate Council. 2000 to 2001 Chair, UALR Graduate Council Personnel Advisory Committee. 2000 to 2001 Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for all PEA W 1300 courses taught as a component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. 1998 to 2001 Member, Advisory Committee to the UALR Chancellor.  Serving on a committee of approximately 25 UALR faculty and administrators providing the Chancellor with feedback on proposed policies designed to enhance the metropolitan mission of the university. 1997 to 2001 Member, UALR Graduate Council. 1996 to 2001 Service to 2000 Member, elected by the Faculty Senate to serve 3$ a member of the UALR Research Committee. Responsibilities of the committee include  reviewing grant proposals written by UALR faculty for funding by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. 1998 to 2000. Chair, UALR Graduate Council Curriculum Subcommittee. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator, Service-Learning component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for the service-learning component of PEAW 1300 courses. Member, UALR Faculty Appeals Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Retention Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Graduate Council Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum. 1996 to 2000. Service to 1999 Member, Freshman Year Experience Brochure Development Committee. Spring, 1999. Member, First-Year Experience Curriculum Committee. 1998 to 1999. Member, UALR Academic Appeals Committee. September 1997 to 1999. Service to 1998 Member, Grant writing team to develop a grant proposal for the Kellogg Foundation visit. April 1998. Kathy K. Franklin 11 Member, UALR World Humanities Core Assessment Group. Served as the Core Assessment Committee liaison on this committee. Responsibility of the committee was to develop a core assessment strategy. March 1997 to 1998. Member, Advisory Subcommittee to the UALR Chancellor. Purpose of subcommittee was to provide s1u9p9p8o. rt for the development of a grant proposal for a 1997 Kellogg Foundation grant. 1997 to Member, UALR Core Assessment Committee. 1996 to 1998. Member, UALR Core Assessment Subcommittee on Implementing the University Core Assessment Plan. 1996 to 1998.  Co-authored the nomination packet for the John Templeton Award for the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. December, 1998. Attended the First-Year Experience Seminar hosted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the University of South Carolina held in Little Rock, AR. April 6 - 7, 1998 Attended the Developing Larning Communities conference sponsored by the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. January 1998. Service to 1997 Developed and implemented an assessment strategy for a learning community experience at UALR at the request of the Office of the Provost and sponsored by a UALR assessment grant. The learning community linked three freshmen courses: Anthropology, Rhetoric and Writing, and Speech Communications. This course was designed based on the research of Vincent Tinto. Summer 1997 Conducted a focus group session of student leaders at UALR, analyzed the data, and drafted an executive summary of the findings for UALR administrators at the request' of the Office of the Provost. The purpose of the focus group session was to explore student leader attitudes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UALR. The information was used to develop a SWOT analysis for the UALR five-year strategic plan. July 1997 Attended the 1997 Service Learning retreat sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Provost. Invited by the Chancellor to join 65 UALR faculty and administrators in a daylong retreat discussing service-learning strategies for UALR. Attended the Critical Thinking Weekend Workshop, featuring Dr. Stanley Paul, at the request of the Office of the Provost in Seattle, Washington. May 1997. Visited with key change agents at Portland State University at the request of the Chancellor for the purpose of \"bridge-building\" between the two metropolitan campuses. May 1997. Service to 1996 Attended the Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Assessment Conference~ held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the request of the Office of the Provost. November 1996. Service to the College of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Annual Review Committee. Spring, 2002. Service to 2001 Department Chair. 1999 - 2001 Attended the annual conference for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Dallas, Texas. 2001. Member, Annual Peer Review Committee. 2001 Member2, 0F0a0c.u lty Search Committee to select an Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration. Member, Faculty Search Committee to select an Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration. 1999 to 2001. a ( E g r: Q Service to 2000 Member, Faculty Search Committee for the Vision Education Program. Spring, 2000. Member, Admissions, Retention, and Exit Committee. 1998 to 2000. Service to 1999 Kathy K. Franklin 12 Discussant, Millennium Forum, Metropolitan Focus Lecture on Instructional Technology, Dr. James In.man, featured speaker. September 30, 1999 Chair, UALR, College of Education Assessment Committee. Responsible for the on-going assessment of ANuCgAuTstE 1 s9t9a7n dtaor d1s9 9a9n.d the implementation of continuous-improvement strategies for the college. Chair, College of Education Assessment Readers Team to critique the college 1999 assessment reports. 1999 Elected by faculty in the Department of Educational Leadership to serve as the faculty reporter for all faculty meetings and to serve as acting chair for the department during the absence of the department chair. 1998 to 1999. Service to 1998 Chair, College of Education NCATE Readers Team. Responsible for reviewing and critiquing the NCATE report for the 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Member, Readers Team for the 1997-98 UALR Annual Assessment Progress Report. May, 1998 Member, College of Education NCATE Steering Committee. Coordination of the preparation for the NCATE 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Guided College of Education faculty through a S.W.O.T. analysis to develop the five-year strategic plan. September 1998. Service to 1997 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Assessment Coordination Committee. 1996 to 1997. Submitted an application to serve as a Research Mentor for the McNair Scholars Program. FebI1\n1ary 1997. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member, Arkansas Academic Advising Network. 2002 to present. Member, American Association of University Women. 2000 to present. Member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. 1994 to present. Member, The American Educational Research Association. 1999 to present. Member, The American Association of Higher Education. 1997 to 2001. Member, Eastern Educational Research Association. 1995 to 1997. PROFESSIONAL HONORS Kathy K. Franklin 13 Nominated for the 2001 Faculty Excellence Award in Research for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December, 2001 A warded the 1999 Faculty Excellence Award in Service for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. April, 1999. Nominated by students in the Higher Education Administration program for the 1997-1998 Faculty Excellence Award in Teaching. December 1997. Awarded the East Tennessee State University, College of Education, 1997 Outstanding Dissertation Award. Nominated by Dr. Hal W. Knight, Associate Dean, College of Education. Selected by the University Council for Educational. Administration to attend the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration held in New York City, 1996. I CURRICULUM LIST East Tennessee State University Higher Education Administration ELPA 6581 Internship with the Office of Enrollment Management ELPA 7820 Administration in Higher Education ELP A 68 80 Higher Education Finance and Law ELP A 6810 Theory of Educational Admjnistration ELP A 6010 Seminar in Education Administration and Organizations HDAL 5720 Student Personnel Services ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 Special Topics - \"Leadership in Professional Development Centers.\" Special Topics - \"Program Planning in Continuing Education.\" Special Topics - \"Proposal and Grant Development.\" Special Topics - \"Politics of Higher Education.\" Special Topics - ''Leadership Studies.\" Education Foundations ELPA 6730 History and Philosophical Foundations of Education ELP A 6906 History and Philosophical Issues in Higher Education HDAL 5200 Human Relations and Group Processes Education Statistics Advanced Research and Analysis Kathy K. Franklin 14 Research ELPA 7810 ELPA 6950 ELPA 6901 MKTG5900 MKTG 5900 Independent Study - \"Multivariate Correlation Analysis\" Independent Study - \"Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 7.0\" Independent Study - \"Investigating the Use of Disconfirmation Theory to Measure College Student Satisfaction\" Middle-Tennessee State University Management and Marketing MGMT0660 Study of Organizations MGMT0665 Seminar in Operations Management BAD 0698 Business Policy MKT MKT MKT MKT 0680 0683 0685 0682 . Marketing Strategy Marketing Systems International Marketing Seminar Marketing Behavior General Business Theory ECON 5110 Economics and Business Decisions (East Tennessee State University) ECON 5240 Applied Macro Economic Theory (East Tennessee State University) FIN 0671 Advanced Financial Analysis lNFS 0671 Systems Analysis ACTG 0691 Accounting and Business Decisions REFERENCES Dr. Candace W. Burns, Chair Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3367 E-mail: cwbums@ualr edu Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3552 E-mail: lxmcneal@ualr.edu Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3267 E-mail: gewatts@ualr.edu Kathy K. Franklin 15 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxmcneal@netscape.net or 1.mcneal59@hotmail.com PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ph.D. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Co=nity Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. Public Affairs. University oflowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration B. A. Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD {1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qraduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educatio~ Leadership, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995- Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, lliinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Cornrnunitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their co=unities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W .K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed~). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Re:production Service No. ED 436 694..  Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Policy Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Changing, 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-co=unity: James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Co=ents about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS , McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter, 1 (2). 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for F1.lllding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001.  McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. I McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, Odober, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (November, 2001 ). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jackspnville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. MeNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern- Regionaf Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. I Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. {November, 1999). School improvement through connnunity dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.  Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school cormnunitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tilbnan, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolconnnunity: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies. to enhance leartti.ng by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeai L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPING along. Creating the Quality School: 5$ Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNe~ L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeai L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will togers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill IO 17. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March).\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\u003eRoss, Steven M.\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1318","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-11-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Court records","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1318"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1729","title":"Court filings concerning motion to add and/or substitute class representatives, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management, and motion to compel PCSSD compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-11"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Knight Intervenors","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School discipline","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to add and/or substitute class representatives, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management, and motion to compel PCSSD compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)"],"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/1729"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to add and/or substitute class representatives; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to compel; District Court, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Management and the Joshua intervenors' motion to quash the deposition subpoenas; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion to disqualify; District Court, order; District Court, response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) motion to compel compliance; District Court, memorandum of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in opposition to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) motion to compel Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, reply of Knight intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT's) motion to compel; District Court, brief in support of reply to response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT's) motion to compel compliance; 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.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV O 9 2001 WESTERN DMSION ~,;:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866S~ED PULASKI COUNT SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEI  VS. DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO\\! 13 2001 Qtf.\\tl~ IBl:..l..-miiifi-ll1l11~11. MOTION TO ADD AND/OR SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PL.AIN'HFlERK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned, for their Motion to Add and/or Substitute Class Representatives, who respectfully move the Court for leave to add additional class representatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court: 1. That the Little Rock School District, through its counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, have .ra ised the issue the identity of the Joshua class representatives; 2. Joshua herein addresses the inference of inadequacy of representation by the Plaintiff by submitting additional parents of school age children of A.fric,an American descent as class representatives; 3. Donna Stone and Dennis Stone are respectfully submitted as additional class representatives on behalf of their minor children: Denise, age 14; Dennis Jr., age 11 and Danielle, age 5; 4. Danielle Stone is enrolled in the kindergarten program at Franklin Elementary; Dennis Jr. is in the 5th grade at Franklin and Denise is in the 9th grade at Hall High School; 5. The Intervenor class members are adequate representatives of the class who understand the lawsuit herein and the obligations of class representation. They verify that they will represent the interests of the class as in the additional or substitute class representatives; 6. There is no prejudice to the Plaintiff by the addition or substitution of the proposed class representatives; and 7. The Joshua Intervenors have discussed this matter with Plaintiffs counsel and said counsel does not object to this addition. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court add Donna Stone and Dennis Stone as additional and/or substitute class representatives on behalf of the Joshua class. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR  72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) .  j J( 1 By  ~'lJv -'QVt(i/1-li_ J?hn W. Walker . VERIFICATION We, Donna Stone and Dennis Stone, are familiar with the Joshua litigation in this case and wish for the litigation to continue because, in our opinions, the Joshua interests have yet to be satisfied. The allegations above in the Motion to Add and/or Substitute Class Representatives are correct in our opinion. We have had the obligations of class representation explained to us by class counsel, John W. Walker, Esquire; understand those obligations; and we are prepared to further and fully represent the interests of not only our three children, but the interests of other children who are similarly situated and within the d finition oft class herein. DENNIS STONE, SR. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this~day of ~001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED NOV 13 2001 OfftCEOF IIIIIIEUl10N DIORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS.LORENEJOSlflJA,ETAL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths. You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. F,\\IIOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\dcsegregation\\DepoNotii:e2.wpd Respectfully submitted, John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501) 376-2011 FAX: (501) 376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By, ifal-- 4w.a4t 71 ohnC. Fendley, Jr. -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9th day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 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 P.O.Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 F:IHOMEIBBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\deaegrcgation\\DepoNotice2.wpd -3- Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 AO 88 (Rev. 11191) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MS. MARGIE POWELL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the talcing of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSmON Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday,Novemberl4,2001 l :00 p.m. (until completed) [X] YOU ARE COMMANDnD to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit \"A\". PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, .LLP 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday,November14,2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. A Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the talcing of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or wmanaging agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the erson will testi . Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 6 . ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANl) DATE ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP .f.00 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 ...,ittle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Paru C \u0026 D on Revme) AO 88 (Rev. 11/9 1) Subpoena in a Civil Case PROOF OF SERVICE DATE SERVED SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) DECLARATION OF SERVER PLACE MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. AExecuted on _________ _ - DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVER Rule 45, Federal Rula of Civil Procedure, P1rta C \u0026 D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. - (1) A party or 10 attorney rt1pooslble (or the luu1oce and service of a subpoena sb1ll t1~ rt1pooslble steps to avoid Imposing undue burden or t1peme on a person ubJect to that subpoena. The court on btb1lf of which the subpoena was luued shall enforce this duty 10d Impose upon the party or attorney In breach of 1h11 duty an appropriate sanction, which may Include, but Is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. (l)(A) A person commanded to produce and permit lmpectloo and copylo1 of de1l1nated boolul, papen, documents or taneJble tblop, or Inspection or premlst1 need not appear lo person 11 the place of production or Inspection uolts1 commanded to appear for depolilloo, beartn1 or trial. (8) Subject to para1npb (d)(l) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permlt Inspection and copyto1 may, within 14 days alter service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance II such time ls lt11 than 14 days alter service, serve upon the party or attorney designated In the subpoena written objection to Inspection or copytn1 of any or au of the deslpated materials or of tbe premilea. II objection Is made, the party servln1 the subpoena shall not be entitled to lmpect and copy the materials or Inspect the premlsea ucept punuant to ID order of the court by which the subpoena was luued. II objection bas betu made, tbe party servln1 the subpoena may, upon notice to the penoo commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any penon who ii not a party or an officer of a party from sl1n10caot e,cpeose resullln1 from the Inspection 10d copyln1 commanded. (3)(A) On timely motion, tbe court by which a subpoena was luued shall quash or modify the subpoena If It (I) falls to allow reasonable time (or compliance; (U) requires a person who Is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to I place more than 100 mllt1 from the place where that person resides, Is employed or reaul1rly transacts buslnt11 lo person, ucept that, subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(8)(111) of this rule, such a penon may In order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within tbe state In which the trial Is held, or (IU) requlrt1 disclosure of prlvile\u0026ed or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (8) II a subpoena (l) requires dilclosure of a trade secret or other confideodal resnrcb, development, or commercial Information, or (U) requires disclosure of an unretaioed expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from tbe expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (IU) requlrt1 a person who Is not I party or an officer of a party to incur substaotl1l upeose to travel more tban 100 mllt1 to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the 1ubpoen1, quaab or modify the subpoena or, II the party in whose behalf the subpoena Is luued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue bard1blp and a11ure1 that the penoo to whom the subpoena iJ addressed will be reasonably compeuated, the court may order appanoce or production only upon specified condldons. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) A person respoodio1 to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them II Ibey are ~I in the u111al coune of bu1lnt11 or shall oreaniu and label them to correspond with the cateaortes in the demand. (2) Whoo information subject to a subpoena Is withheld on a claim that Is prlvileeed or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made A expre11iy and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or tbinp not produced that Is sufficient to enable the demandin1 party to contest the .cblm.  Exhibit \"A\" Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright; any email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to\" shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication\" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. FILED ' U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV O 9 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLEHK PLAINTIFF ; t,~   ' fn - --;-;;-  'I .. ~'!'I\\ U'I ..,.,_.,., vs CASE NO. 4:82CV-fl!CEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NOV 13 2001 OFFICE OF DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT DESEG~TION MONITORINBINTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE LRSD'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTER VENO RS On or about October 26, 2001 , District counsel, John Clay Fendley and John Christopher Heller, moved to compel the Joshua Intervenors to answer and otherwise respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that it had served on Joshua on or about August 11 , 2001. The Joshua Intervenors responded to the LRSD's discovery requests on September 24, 2001. The responses, Joshua believes, were full and complete. The first set ofLRSD interrogatories was followed by a second set at which point Joshua requested and the Court granted a hearing upon Joshua's motion for relief On October 2, 2001 , the Court addressed both sets of interrogatories and made considl!rable reference to both sets either upon reference thereto by counsel for the respective parties or upon her own inquiry. At the_time of the proceeding, the Court did not have before her the extensiye responses made by Joshua to the first set ofLRSD interrogatorles. The ODM, 1 however, did have those responses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court quashed the LRSD interrogatories which had not been answered. Joshua submits that, at least by implication, the Court quashed any challenge to the first set of interrogatories as well because Little Ro~k argued during the hearing that many ofJoshua responses to the first set of interrogatories were unresponsive. Because the Court did not have all of the Joshua responses before her, and because the LRSD motion to compel did not attach the Joshua exhibits which accompanied Joshua' s first answers to discovery, the exhibits (See Attachment 1) are now being submitted to the court so that it can make its own determination of whether Joshua's responses were sufficient under the circumstances of the issue then before the Court, i.e. whether the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report submitted by LRSD justified and warranted a declaration of unitary status for the LRSD. Joshua notes that LRSD sought information that it already had which had been provided by Joshua such as the \"addresses\" for the monitors identified. See its Exhibit 3 to this motion. Counsel verbally informed Messrs. Fendley and Heller that counsel's business address was the address of the monitors. In the motion to compel, Messrs. Fendley and Heller note that the responses were unverified and had been noted in the September 27th letter to counsel. A review of the September 27th letter by counsel did not disclose a request for verification. Counsel notes though that pleadings signed by counsel have the same force as verified pleadings in that counsel is an officer of the court and is obliged to submit only truthful responses to court required mqumes. Finally, Joshua requests the court to review the transcript of the October 2, 2001 proceeding in the event that the Court is persuaded that the objections to Joshua's responses are 2 the Motion to. Compel be denied. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 BrW-~ CERTIFICATE OF SE~ I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been delivered to all counsel of record including the ODM on this '_!f:f5__day ofNovember, 2001 (JblM~ --------- ------ FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. PRIOAY ( 1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE J). BELL, P.A.  A. BUTTRY, P.A. lCK S. URSERY, P.A. E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. J S C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOKN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIPP NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D, TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU, P.A. MICHAELS. MOOR..E, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H.ARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON, P.A. HAND DELIVERED Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: ODM Depositions Dear Ann: \u003c, ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-21.7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-7822Q18 November 9, 2001 JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JON ANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAN, P.A. BETTY J, DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 , TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN RECEIVED NOV ./3 2001 OfRCEOF ~MOIIIORflli JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMJTH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSEL S.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.O. MCALLISTER CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1501 FAX 5012445344 htllerCfec.n,t Please find enclosed copies of our Motion in Limine and Brief, which were filed today, as well as Deposition Notices and Subpoenas for yourself and members of your staff. As you can see from our Motion in Limine, we believe that the people in your office should not be allowed to testify in this proceeding. The purpose of the depositions is not to learn what a particular witnesses' testimony might be in court, but only to determine whether the court has received extra-judicial infonnation on the merits of the case from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe we are required to investigate the possibility of extra-judicial communications on the merits of this case before the hearing continues on November 19, 2001. We therefore have little flexibility in the scheduling of the depositions but, if Tuesday or Thursday would be more convenient for you than Wednesday, we would be amenable to rescheduling for one of those days. Finally, please let me know whether you will accept service of the enclosed subpoenas or if it will be necessary for us to secure service in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I Ms. Ann Marshall November 9, 2001 Page2 CJH/bk Enclosures cc w/enc. via fax: Hon. Susan Webber Wright Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Mr. Mark Hagameier Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken James  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED NOV t..3 2001 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Comes the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), by its undersigned attorneys, and for its motion in limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), states: 1. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has given notice that three members of the ODM will be called as witnesses for the Intervenors at the hearing on unitary status. 2. The ODM was created as an arm of the court for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to that purpose, the ODM (i) operates under a budget approved by the court and subject to the court's broad discretion, (ii) has access to school district personnel and to information concerning the school districts, (iii) reports to the court and to the parties regarding progress with the requirements of the Districts' desegregation plans, (iv) serves a collaborative function in identifying and facilitating discussion among the parties with regard to desegregation remedies, and ( v) facilitates agreement between the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD with regard to compliance issues under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. It is contrary to the purpose and function of the ODM for its members to testify as witnesses on adversarial issues between the parties, particularly the issue of unitary status. Testimony by ODM members regarding the factual predicates for unitary status will be perceived as either hostile or favorable to particular parties. It will be the duty of counsel to cross-examine the ODM witnesses for bias or impeachment. In short, appearing as a witness on the issue of unitary status is contrary to the ODM's long-standing and historic function as an agent of the court and destructive of its collaborative and facilitating role with the parties. 4. If the members of the ODM are permitted to appear as witnesses on the issue of unitary status, then the LRSD has a due process right, supported by Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (\"FRE\"), to depose them with regard to their expected testimony and to cross-examine them at the hearing. The LRSD will be entitled to explore (i) whether the ODM witnesses have formed conclusions or opinions regarding the LRSD's request for unitary status, (ii) the basis for those conclusions or opinions, and (iii) the witnesses ' credibility. 5. The issue of credibility will place the parties in the untenable and unfair position of asking the court to disbelieve witnesses who (i) represent the remedial arm of the court itself, and (ii) have had more than a decade of experience in working with the court and the parties in the role of monitor and facilitator. The working relationship over that period of time includes numerous ex parte contacts between the ODM and the court. 6. The court stated at the hearing held on June 29, 2001 (i) that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was free to call the members of the ODM as witnesses \"to the extent ... they have knowledge on the matters at issue,\" and (ii) that the court had spoken informally with an ODM staff member and that the court had no objection to such member sharing with the parties \"the information she has.\" (Transcript of 6/29/01 Hearing, 27-28) These statements by the court necessarily indicate a belief that the ODM has evidence which is relevant to the issue of unitary status and that is not 2 merely cumulative of evidence that may be presented independently by the parties. 7. The LRSD is aware of a recent statement by the Federal Monitor in a public forum to the effect that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" This circumstance indicates that the Federal Monitor (i) has formed an opinion or conclusion that is not strictly within the ODM' s charge to act as a monitor for the court and a facilitator for the parties, and (ii) has aligned herself publicly and to a significant degree with the position of the Joshua Intervenors on the issue of unitary status. 8. Independently of the ODM witnesses' testimony on the merits, it is material to the LRSD's case whether the ODM and the court have had ex parte discussions on the issue ofunitary status or related issues. If such discussions have occurred, issues arise concerning (i) whether the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(1 ), (ii) whether the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(a), and (iii) whether the court has considered ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits, within the meaning of Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 9. The LRSD reserves it right to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the court on any and all matters affecting the LRSD's right to an impartial hearing on its request for unitary status, and if so, to seek an appropriate remedy. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the court prohibit testimony by members of the ODM at the hearing on the LRSD's request for unitary status, and for all other just and proper relief. 3 Respectfully submitted, Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 4 Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\descgmotion in limine.wpd 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The ODM was created under the court's inherent equitable powers, at the direction of the Eighth Circuit, to replace the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the ODM is to function as an \"agent\" of the court for the ongoing \"supervision or monitoring\" of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1386, 1388. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that the ODM's monitoring of the parties' compliance with the settlement agreement is equivalent to monitoring by the court itself under its retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1390; compare Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 890 F.2d 65, 67-68 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting that the creation of a desegregation monitoring committee at the remedial stage was within the court's inherent equitable powers). The only intimation of a testimonial role for the ODM in the opinions of the Eighth Circuit is with regard to its budgetary process. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit held that the parties were entitled to review the ODM's proposed budget and to submit recommendations and objections to the court. The Eighth Circuit noted that there might be \"rare occasions when issues are of such importance that an evidentiary hearing is required,\" id., but such a heari "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1713","title":"Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School management and organization","School integration","School superintendents","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1713"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, motion for order authorizing alternative means for preparation of transcript of the October 2, 2001, hearing; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, two orders; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, notice of audio-visual deposition; District Court, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents; District Court, responses of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) brief in support of motion to compet Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) complaince with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.f!JmfRRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT O 3 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEI\\IE01 Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * OCT s 2001 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School District's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members of the Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has \"misled\" Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshua's access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001 , the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001 , which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Administrative Directive EGAD (\"The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail\"). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions of the Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2 Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB (\"Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA\"). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshua's continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Court's Order entered August 20, 2001 , in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is .not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus; however, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact counsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. r:53, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~~:~ CHIEFWDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN iO - 3 --0 I sv__.\\2t.....,_ _ _ FILED . U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT O 4 2001 ~~~ES\\1~~~~ ~ljRK DEPCLeRT\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs . 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT !') ZOO! OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John . Walker. In lignt of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 1 counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled, and the motion for contempt is denied as moot . . -t_{ DATED this -1- day of October, 2001 . r Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON !O -() '-1-tJ I BY D'C ' 1A copy of Mr. Fendley's faxed letter is attached to .. - 516 RECEIVED OCT -9 2001 (1111(1- _ ___ IIIIJORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001 , as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents \"concerning the LRSD's activities withrespect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001\" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001 . As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001 , which should have been performed before March 15, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: C\"{~l-~ }Z:,nristopher Heller ( #81083) ' t}ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 RECEIVED OCT ~ 9 2001 - (IIU:lir ll\u0026BtllD'amtllG 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR'ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3, 2001 quashed LRSD's second set ofinterrogatories and requests for production \"except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing\" of October 2, 2001 . 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19, 2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19, 2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript prepared from the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- BY. C  p er Heller (#8108 John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED, E~ 'i,11m~'ilt~SAS OCT 15 toot QfflCECI DESBH6A1Dlld_H_IIIE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... ~ W a~RMACK, QERK WESTERN DIVISION J~  RMN . _ Sy: OE1' Cl11llt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL J\\.1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Court's Order. The Court's Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201~ Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jo 1  Walker (._/ -2- QC I J  2001 FILED .. , .IJtOF IIEREGATION MONITORlf~G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 17 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 1,etal., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW -.ECEIVEt  OCT 18 200\\ QfflCE OF oES6EMlll talilllNG The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School District's response [docket no. 3517] to this Court's Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors' response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSD's response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to \"being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\"1 LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSD's objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") subsequent to March 1In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.; Option 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. ,. ' , 15, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshua's objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances ~arrant, file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15, 2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report (\"Compliance Report\") [ docket no. 341 0], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically~ LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.2 The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshua's objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshua's activities- Joshua's activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshua's objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan; however, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance 2Docket no. 3410 (\"Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order\"), Paragraph No. 1. 2 Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy ofLRSD's representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Court's disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue.3 However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the district's good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,491 (1992) (\"A court's discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] . . . whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree . . .. \"). THEREFORE, the Court's Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. -tr~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JU~' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3Toe Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: \"LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN ID-- \\1-0\\ sv_sf( ____ ~ECEIVED OCT 19 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 7 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:M_E_S-'--~~f..J..A~~44-~ 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. * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") for - approval of the ODM budget for 2001-02. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the ODM budget for 2001-02. fr..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~#A~~ HIEFJUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULJ: 58 AND/O~a) FRCP ON JO\"'( \"rf \"0 I 5y_V-'--\\ __ _ 1 The ODM communicated the proposed budget to the Court in a letter dated September 25, 2001. See docket no. 3509 [September 28, 2001 Order giving parties 15 days to object to the ODM budget for 2001-02], attachment. ra 5 2 2 10 - 30 -o I I .'30Jwt f, -c.l~- i-;J }r-e1 rVJ ~J:Je, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN.DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866RECE\\VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Orr\\CtOf OESEGRf.GA1\\0ll lAOmt0mi\u0026 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashed Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501_) 376-2011 BY:_....,q.::c:..:;_::......::t:....,;,__J~=...,,..\u003cC\u003eo\u003c...f,.-4.---H_,.__ 2 hristopher Heller (#810 3). hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#9218 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by t.if _.. mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-compcl-clarification.wpd ,, 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 8-9- o I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA TORJES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the fo ll owing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm , associa tion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether foce to face, by telephone, mail , personal deli very, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" EXHIBIT Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the tenn \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a documen t is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a-request for identification or production is in you r co ntrol , but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession - or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, bu t is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc .) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identi ty of such 2 The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. I: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. fNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representati ve and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed - monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revi sed Desegregation and Education Plan . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 fNTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June IO, 1999, on July, I, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, 1999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, I 999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communica tions between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March I 5, 2000. fNTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial di sparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD; (c) Whether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for ra ising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD; ( c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents per1aining to yo ur response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racia l discrimination in the imposition of discipline. fNTERROGA TORY NO. I 0: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions nre of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March I 5, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to you r response to the preceding inte "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1552","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1552"],"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":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1084","title":"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"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/1084"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nEC IVE DEC 13 2001 Extended Year Education (EYE) Report SY2000-2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation September 28, 2001 Abstract National research on Extended Year Education (EYE) programs has indicated a number of key variables.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. Demographically the three EYE schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) are more different than similar.  They share similar ethnic and SES ratios.  The schools are of different size, their instructional programs are different, and they are allocated varying levels of resources.  Stephens is a new school that opened in January 2001. Achievement data is mixed.  4th grade Benchmark scores improved at Mabel vale.  On some subjects measured by the Achievement Level Test (ALT), schools are growing faster than the national comparison sample.  The three schools also performed well in comparison to other schools in the District on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) readiness to read percent. Other variables indicate mixed results.  Discipline sanctions, compared to Woodruff, appear high at Mabelvale and Stephens.  Surveys of EYE parents, students, and teachers indicated a positive perception of the EYE program and in particular, parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  The cost of implementing the EYE program adds $23,993 to each school's operating budget.  Teacher behavior (i.e., sick and personal leave, professional development, and inservice days) has not measurably changed. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff performing above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ professional development hours It is uncertain whether the aforementioned results were due to calendar change or to the continuity of instruction (e.g., intersessions). Continued annual reports will help to validate EYE program success or lack thereof. Concluding remarks indicate a need for the District and schools to review their allocation of resources and intervene where possible, to work on improving the amount of professional development, and to incorporate not only achievement goals and data, but also EYE survey goals and data into each school's improvement plan. 2 Introduction and Method Description of the EYE Program In August of 2000, Little Rock School District opened the school year with three of its elementary schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) operating on an extended year calendar. Below is the calendar for the upcoming SY2001-2002. August 8 - School begins October 15-18 - 1st intersession October 22-26 - Vacation Dec. 2-January 1 - Winter break February 4-8 - 2nd intersession February 11-13 - Vacation March 25-29- Spring break April 17-19 - 3rd intersession June 19 - Last day June 24-29 - 4th intersession EYE is a concept, which reorganizes the school year so that the standard instructional period is distributed throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks or vacations interspersed. Educational instruction and vacations are organized into smaller segments and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. EYE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. This is just another avenue that the Little Rock School District is employing to offer all students an opportunity for outstanding achievement. Little Rock's design is a single track 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Comparison of EYE and Traditional Calendars EXTENDED YEAR CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS 30 STUDENT INTERSESSION DAYS ONE MONTH SUMMER VACATION (JULY) 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS 3 TRADITIONAL CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS SUMMER SCHOOL 2  MONTHS BREAK 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS Expected Outcomes from Implementing EYE Section 2. 7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 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. Less time needed to reteach. In order to start a new year effectively, teachers tend to devote four or more weeks on reviewing and reteaching. Time is recognized as a major factor that leads to loss of learning. Increased reading skills. Reading is the biggest hurdle for disadvantaged children in the primary grades. The gap between disadvantaged and average children widens between September and June as well as over the span of several calendar years. Studies show that low socioeconomic students lose as much as 1 to 2 months during the summer without the benefit of compensatory programs. It is true that all students regardless of ability or background forget, but for the disadvantaged the problem is greater. Disadvantaged children acquire new skills and knowledge during the school year only to have their gains dissipate over the months when schools are not in session. Intersession. For students working below grade level, extended year schedules offer an opportunity to gain individual help. The traditional calendar makes these students wait until the end of the year for summer school. It does not provide the opportunity for additional help close to the times of the learning problem. Balanced holidays. Most people in a working community are not limited only to summer vacation. Scheduling vacations during times other than when most people travel is attractive to many\nthe cost of travel, lodging and admission costs are often reduced. Large crowds can be avoided. Vacations can be scheduled at times that are better for the working parent and the employer. Families whose children attend extended year schools can easily plan for a wider variety of family vacation experiences. Children in schools on the traditional calendar and the extended calendar will find that all of the major holiday periods are the same. Less burnout. Frequent breaks result in less stress and burnout. The intersession/vacation periods refresh teachers and students, resulting in improved teachers' and students' attitudes and decreasing teacher burnout. Teachers and students return from breaks refreshed and motivated. Results of National Research National research has indicated that EYE type schools have outcomes similar to or better than traditional calendar schools. This national research has reached the following conclusions.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. 4 National research is uncertain as to the reasons that certain EYE type schools have demonstrated an increase in achievement schools versus traditional calendar year schools. Researchers have speculated that the remediation and enrichment activities provided during intersession have an effect and also, the reduction of the summer vacation may contribute to a lessening of the traditional summer fall off (Kirk, 2000). Methodology This report will examine a number of variables to determine the impact of EYE on student achievement, teacher behavior, parent, teacher, and student attitudes toward the EYE program, and the cost of the EYE program. The variables to be reported and discussed in this report are: 1. Demographic and equitable allocation data. 2. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2. 3. Achievement Test Level (ALT) growth scores in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science for grades 2-5. 4. SAT-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4. 5. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days. 6. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers. 7. Additional EYE program costs. Data will be reported in aggregate and disagregate form. However, given the high percentage of Black students at the three EYE schools and the importance of improving the achievement scores of Black students, concluding remarks will focus on Black student performance. 5 Results Demographic Data 10/1/00 Enrollment by Grade level and Ethnicity PreK Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4tn 5'n Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Mabel vale 919 35 / 14 35 / 15 46 / 5 40 I 13 46 I 20 47 I 12 Stephens 32 / 3 54 / 3 45 / 3 36 / 4 45 / l 49 / 4 46 / 2 Woodruff 42 /l 1 35 / 4 37 / 3 35 / 4 34/7 27 /7 30 I 5 Ethnicity, SES, and Instructional Program School N Ethnicity %SES Instructional (PreK) Black/ Non-Black Strategies Mabel vale 346 75%/25% 83% (18) ELLA Stephens 327 94%/6% 90% ELLA (35) Woodruff 281 85% / 15% 85% SFA (53) 6 Equitable Allocation Worksheet Data Scores are based on a 1-8 scale, with the higher score indicating more resources allocated to that school. Scores were calculated in December 2000 and derived from the 10/1 /00 enrollment report. Caution is advised in comparing Stephens to Garland. The mid-year changeover from Garland affected several of the variables ( e.g .. % of new teachers, computer/pupil ratio, and sq. ft. per pupil). Except for these three variables, scores tend to reflect the status of Garland at 10/1/00 rather than Stephens. Given that most data is based on 10/1/00 enrollment, it will be at least another two years before a reliable comparison is available for Stephens. Mabel vale Stephens Woodruff 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 Teacher/Pupil Ratio 4 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 Staff/Pupil Ratio 4 5 6 7 8 8 6 6 Sq. Feet per Pupil 5 7 8 5 6 3 5 5 % of Staff with MA, +9 1 1 I I I 2 3 I years Experience % of new Teachers 6 4 7 3 .., ., 1 2 4 School Size 4 3 4 6 7 5 6 7 Computer/Pupil Ratio 6 5 7 4 3 8 3 1 Per Pupil Expenditure 5 3 3 6 7 6 5 6 Volunteer hours per Pupil 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 Donations per pupil 5 4 6 4 5 4 2 2 Total Score 41 36 44 46 50 47 41 42 Conclusions  Woodruff is the smallest school but has the largest Pre-K program and is due to the temporary placement of some Pre-K students from Stephens until Stephens opened in January 2001.  There is some variability in ethnicity with a range of 75% Black students at Mabelvale to 94% Black students at Stephens. However, all three schools are above the District average of 68% Black.  With a range of 83% to 90%, there appears to be less variability for the SES variable.  Woodruff is the only SF A school, with Stephens and Mabelvale using ELLA instructional strategies.  Mabel vale has a lower enrollment in Kindergarten and 1st grade than other grade levels at Mabelvale. Woodruff has consistent grade level enrollments. Stephens has a comparatively large Kindergarten class.  Equitable allocation worksheet scores for Mabelvale and Woodruff have increased over time.  For SY2000-200 I, Mabelvale had an increase in the computer to pupil ratio, and donations per pupil. 7 00-01 7 7 5 5 5 7 2 5 2 7 52  There was less teacher turnover at Mabelvale.  Mabelvale has remained consistently low on the volunteer hours per pupil variable and % of staff with MA +9 years experience, with a score of 1 for all three years.  Woodruff had an increased number of staff with MA +9 years experience and per pupil donations. However, Woodruff has remained consistently low in the ratio of computers per pupil. With some minor variation, the three EYE schools are similar on the other allocation variables. There appears to be more differences than similarities in the demographic make-up of the three EYE schools. The three schools share similar SES and ethnic makeup, teacher and staff per pupil ratio, and per pupil expenditure. Differences between the schools are  Enrollment and grade level size.  The instructional programs, with two schools using ELLA and one a SF A school.  The ratio of computers, volunteer hours, donations, and % of staff with MA +9 years experience. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2 The OS and ORA are observational measures used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The OS consists of five measurable tasks:  Letter Identification (Letter) records the letters a student knows.  Word Test (Word) records the number of words a students knows.  Concepts in Print (Cap) records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Writing Vocabulary (Voe) records all the words a student can write in ten minutes.  Writing Records (Diet) identifies a student's writing behavior. The ORA is considered a pivotal task in which student reading behavior is recorded as text is read aloud. During this observation students read materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer (i.e., the classroom teacher) records the directional movements that are made and errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The OS and DRA were administered in the fall and spring to Kindergarten through 2nd grade students. The OS and DRA is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as these students learn to read and write. The OS and DRA are useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. Where appropriate, the OS and DRA are administered to all students. A student is considered to be ready to read at the next grade level with a DRA score of 2 in kindergarten, 16 in 1st grade, and 24 in 2nd grade. Growth scores on the OS and DRA by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix A. The table below reports the percent of students by ethnicity and grade level who are considered to be ready to read at the next grade level. SY2000-2001 scores are derived from 8 the DRA assessment completed during April 2001. Data for schools in which there were less than five non-black students will not be reported. Percent of students at the readiness level Kindere:arten 1st Grade 20 Grade Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 Mabel vale 61.5 86.4 75 100 51.1 87.5 66.7 87.9 32.4 60 68.8 Stephens 40.4 87.5 24.1 36.6 39.3 58.5 ,, Woodruff 68.6 48.6 - 84.4 65.7 . 82.9 84.8 District 69.3 77 84.7 88.8 48.3 57.4 71.2 77.3 63.8 69.8 81.6 Conclusions For Black students, at the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores. At the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the I st grade level Mabel vale and Woodruff exceeded the District cohort improvement scores and the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the 2nd grade level Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores, with only Woodruff exceeding the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. Except for Mabelvale the number of Non-Black students is small. Actual Black student growth performance from Fall to Spring is mixed (See appendix A). In Kindergarten:  Mabelvale performed above the District in hearing and recording sounds and the DRA.  Stephens performed above the District average in letter identification, word test, writing vocabulary, and hearing and recording sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification and word test. In I st grade:  Mabelvale preformed better than the District in word test, writing vocabulary, and DRA.  Stephens performed better in concepts in print and hearing and recording word sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification. In 2nd grade:  Mabelvale performed better than the District in letter identification and hearing and recording word sounds. 9 00-01 83.3 ' 86.8  Stephens performed better in writing vocabulary, hearing and recording word sounds, and DRA.  Woodruff performed better in hearing and recording word sounds. Achievement Level Test (ALT) Growth Scores The AL Ts include a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across levels. The tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the \"cutting edge\" of their individual achievement level. Spring administration across grades 2 - 9 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. This is a \"comparative group\" currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. Demonstration of growth within and across an individual's matriculation, spring to spring, in grades 2 - 9 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 160-190 in the spring of the 2nd grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Along the scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual student's grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each student's achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. The AL Ts are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts, and Science Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level ( e.g., Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALT median and median growth scores by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix B. A median score represents data in which 50% of the students scored above the median score and 50% of the students scored below the median score. The outcome scores for this report are the Spring 2001 results. EYE Spring 2001 results for Black students will be compared to District Black students. The target scores listed in appendix B were derived from a nationwide comparison group of 500,000 students that have taken the AL Ts. ALT data will be reported in two ways. First, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject in which these students performed equal to or better than the District median scores. None of the EYE schools met or exceed the comparison group median target scores. Secondly, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject is which these students performed equal to or better than the District and comparison group growth scores (i.e., target scores). Below are the Black student median outcome results for Spring 2001 that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. Mabel vale Reading 2nd grade 4th grade Garland/Stephens Reading none Woodruff Reading 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Language none Language none Language 2nd grade Math 2nd grade 4th grade Math none Math 2nd grade 5th grade Science 3rd grade Science none Science 3rd grade 5th grade Below are the Black student one-year growth results or EYE schools that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. An * means than the students grew at or above the target score. Mabel vale Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Garland/Stephens Reading 4th grade* Language 3rd grade 4th grade Language 3rd grade 4th grade* 5th grade* 11 Math 4th grade* Math 3rd grade* 4th grade 5th grade* Science 5th grade Science 4th grade Woodruff Conclusions Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Language 4th grade* Math 3rd grade Science 4th grade While median outcome results for Black students at Mabelvale and Woodruff had mixed results, reading appears to be a strong subject primarily at Woodruff. Growth scores appear optimistic. In all three schools a number of grades are growing not only faster than the District median, but also faster than the target score. SA T-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4 SAT-9 and Benchmark data report a cohort of students in time. The SA T-9 is given in the fall to 5th grade students and the Benchmark is given in the spring to 4th grade students. SA T-9 for the District and three EYE schools are reported in Appendix C. Black student percentile scores for SAT-9: Complete battery 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 29 28 24 19 17 Garland/ 18 17 23 24 24 Stephens Woodruff 30 32 22 14 34 District 26 25 30 26 29 Percent of Black students at or above the proficient level on Benchmark exam Mathematics Literacv 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 Mabel vale 0% 16% 18% 15% 21% Stephens 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% Woodruff 4% 20% 19% 4% 34% District 8% 15% 16% 20% 29% Conclusions The SAT-9 data for 2000-2001 was collected at the beginning of the EYE program and will be useful in future EYE reports. The Benchmark data was collected in the spring 200 I and is somewhat a reflection of the change to EYE. Obviously what a student has incurred in the years prior to the EYE program will have as equal or greater affect than the one year in EYE. Mabel vale had an increase in the number of Black students at or above the proficient level, while Stephens and Woodruff had no change or a decrease 12 2000 2 4 1 2 4th Grade Benchmark Exam - -~ Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 42 81% 34 67% 33 66% 10 19% 6 12% 7 14% 0 0% 7 14% 8 16% 0 0% 4 8% 2 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 76% 30 75% 26 76% 7 24% 4 10% 2 6% 0 0% 5 13% 4 12% 0 0% 1 3% 2 6% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 12 80% 4 40% 6 43% 3 20% 2 20% 4 29% 0 0% 1 10% 4 29% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 29 60% 27 53% 22 44% 14 29% 13 25% 17 34% 5 10% 10 20% 11 22% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 15 58% 25 63% 17 50% 7 27% 7 18% 11 32% 4 15% 7 18% 6 18% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 10 71% 2 20% 4 29% 4 29% 5 50% 6 43% 0 0% 3 30% 4 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 - - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 24 89% 28 88% 43 91% 2 7% 4 13% 4 9% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 92% 28 88% 42 93% 2 8% 4 13% 3 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 16 62% 17 53% 35 74% 6 23% 11 34% 9 19% 4 15% 4 13% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 14 61% 17 53% 35 78% 6 26% 11 34% 8 18% 3 13% 4 13% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 25 76% 23 68% 19 66% 4 12% 3 9% 4 14% 2 6% 6 18% 2 7% 2 6% 2 6% 4 14% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 81% 20 69% 17 77% 4 15% 3 10% 1 5% 1 4% 5 17% 1 5% 0 0% 1 3% 3 14% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 3 50% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 17% 1 20% 0 0% 2 33% 1 20% 1 33% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 20 59% 11 32% 11 38% 12 35% 11 32% 10 34% 2 6% 12 35% 8 28% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 18 64% 10 34% 10 45% 9 32% 9 31% 8 36% 1 4% 10 34% 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 2 33% 1 20% 0 0% 3 50% 2 40% 0 0% 1 17% 2 40% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 Discipline Sanctions Number and Percent to student population . Sanctions minus repeat offenses School of Sanctions (Grades 1-3) Mabel vale 30 (19.5%) 23 (15%) Stephens 55 (41%) 32 (23.9%) Woodruff 2 (1.7%) 2 (1.7%) Conclusions Both Mabel vale and Stephens had a number of repeat offenses. However, Stephens had almost 25% of their 1st through 3rd grade students sanctioned. In addition, the 15% single sanctions at Mabelvale is also high. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days Data from Garland is used for SY's 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. There appears considerable variability in the tables for professional development and inservice days. Since this appears to be so, the last table combines both these data. The first set of tables are data received from the Financial Services Department and reflect the number of days a teacher was out of the school. The last table are data received from the Staff Development Department and reflect staff development hours teachers received either during or after school hours. Average Sick Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 12.45 9.69 11.1 Stephens 7.21 * 8.11 * 7.99 Woodruff 12.8 9.13 7.12 District 8.84 8.74 8.99 Average Personal Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale .76 .87 .94 Stephens .89* 1.12* .86 Woodruff 1.06 1.29 1.16 District 1.01 1.05 1.13 16 Average Professional Development Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 .17 Stephens 1.62* 1.80* .37 Woodruff 1.13 1.03 .49 District 1.61 1.68 2.42 Average Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 0 0 2.34 Stephens .13* .14* 1.67 Woodruff .35 1.5 1.61 District .33 .57 .32 Average Combined Professional Development and Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 2.51 Stephens 1.75 1.93 2.04 Woodruff 1.48 2.53 2.09 District 1.94 2.25 2.74 Average Staff Development Hours, using the District's new reporting system, provided by the Staff Development Department. Data is not available for years prior to 2000- 2001. School 2000-2001 Mabel vale 33.4 Stephens 40.3 Woodruff 50.1 % below 30 hours % 30 to 60 hours % above 60 hours Mabel vale 35% 35% 31% Stephens 27% 33% 40% Woodruff 4% 39% 57% District 32% 38% 31% 17 Conclusions Average sick days. The District trend is mixed, but appears to be on the increase. Woodruff s use of sick days shows a decreasing trend, while Mabel vale and Stephens are mixed. Stephens and Woodruff are below the District average, with Mabel vale above the average. Average personnel days. The District trend is on the increase and also at Mabel vale. Stephen's data may indicate a downward trend, with Woodruff data mixed. Mabelvale and Stephens are below the District average, with Woodruff above. Combined professional development and inservice days. While both the District and Stephens have an increase trend in these days, all three schools are below the District average. Staff Development. The minimum required yearly hours for teacher certification is 30. Woodruff by far has the highest average staff development hours and the most teachers with 30+ hours of professional development. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers The survey results by the combined three schools and the individual schools are reported in Appendix D (parents), E (students), and F (teachers). Typically school results do not vary greatly from the combined report. Thus, concluding remarks will be directed towards the combined data. The purpose of the EYE program survey was to determine parent, student and teacher perception of their school. Several key survey questions, asked across all groups, are reported below by combined results. Interest in educational program. Parents, students, and teachers perceive a greater interest by students in the educational program this year as opposed to last year. Short vacation periods. Most parents and teachers feel that their children/students like the shorter periods. A little over half (56%) of the students liked the shorter periods. Students achieve higher than at their traditional school year. Many parents (57%) felt their children performed better during the EYE calendar year rather than during a traditional calendar. Less than half ( 46%) of the teachers felt that their students did better during the EYE calendar. However, 68% of the students felt they performed better during the EYE calendar. Continuation of the EYE program. Most parents (76%) want the EYE program to continue. Students (63%) as well as teachers (83%) felt the same way as parents. Value of intersessions. The perceptions of intersessions are mixed. Parents have ambivalent feelings towards intersession, with 52% of parents feeling that an intersession has more value than a summer vacation. Students (65%) enjoyed the intersessions. Teachers (63%) felt that students benefited more the intersession than other typical summer programs. Expansion of the EYE program. Parents, students and teachers agree than the program should be expanded to other District schools. 18 Teachers felt the EYE program reduced the need to reteach, the program reduced stress levels, and provided for continuity in instruction. However, teachers felt that parents are not any more involved than before with their children's education. Students reported they had more time to learn and get extra help. However, these same students (50%) were ambivalent as to the benefit of Voyager lessons. Parents felt there were more programs available to help their children, that the EYE calendar did not effect the family life, and that their children had attended at least one intersession. Most reporting parents had sent their child to at least one intersession. Conclusions By and large parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE program. These groups feel that there is more interest in school because of the EYE program, they like the shorter vacation periods, and would like not only to continue the EYE program at these three schools, but to also see the program expanded to other District schools. However, parents and teachers are not yet convinced that the EYE program is improving student achievement. Also, there are mixed feelings towards the benefits of intersession. Additional EYE program costs Intersession Payroll Cost #1 Mabelvale $11,403.45 Stephens $31,649.76 Woodruff $20,461.13 Total by intersession $63,514.34 #2 $8,382.45 $6,192.51 $7,590.38 $22,165.34 #3 Total by school $14,930.76 $34,716.66 $9,884.26 $47,726.53 $11,012.59 $39,064.10 $35,827.62 $121,507.30 Each school used $10,000 each from their summer school budget. The only additional cost was transportation with an average cost per school of $23,993. Total additional transportation costs were $71,979. Special education transportation costs were not billed to the EYE schools, but rather were paid by the transportation department. Budget 2000-2001 Mabel vale $1,663,685.09 Stephens $1, 770.258.07 Woodruff $1,313,414.06 Conclusions The only additional cost incurred by the schools that was not in their yearly budget was the cost of intersession transportation. 19 Concluding Remarks Other than similarities in ethnicity and SES, the three EYE schools are more different than similar. The fact that Stephens is a new school makes comparison analysis very difficult. In terms of the allocation ofresources, Mabel vale continues to rank low in% of teachers with an MA and experience, and volunteer hours. Woodruff has remained low in the ratio of computers to pupils. Achievement data is mixed. While the schools generally outperform the District in the percent of students ready to read at the next grade level, as measured by the DRA, these schools do not necessarily outperform the District average in actual growth on the OS and DRA. Median ALT scores for Spring 2001 are not that impressive. However, the bright spot is the ALT growth from Spring 2000 to Spring 2001. All of the schools, on a number of subjects and grade levels, not only outperformed the District median scores, but also the target median scores. Benchmark and SAT-9 data indicate mixed improvement in scores. Teacher behavior data is mixed. While the District is experiencing an increasing trend in the use of sick, personnel days there is also an increase in professional development and inservice days. EYE schools' use of sick and personal days is mixed. There is no downward trend. Also, these schools are below the District average in combined professional development and days. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ hours in professional development. Overall, the data tends to indicate that while staff may like the concept of EYE, it in of itself is not sufficient enough to change teacher behavior. The surveys of parents, teachers, and students indicated a positive perception of the EYE program. However, teachers continue to perceive a lack of parental involvement and they also feel that their students may not be performing as well as during the traditional year. Parents are not sure that the intersessions are that beneficial. However, they feel that the EYE program is not disruptive to their lives. The cost of the EYE program adds approximately 1.5 percent (1.5%)  to the budgets of each school. While achievement data is mixed, there is a phenomenon occurring that has affected the ALT growth median scores and percent readiness scores on the DRA. These results could be the product of calendar change itself, or it could be the continuity of instruction time via intersessions. The phenomenon has not produced measurable change in teacher behavior. Staff development hours should be a priority for these three schools. Also, at this point in time, parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE. The EYE program has gotten off to an optimistic start. The District and schools need to review their allocation of resources and work towards improvement ( e.g., volunteer hours at school level and targeting Woodruff for computers). In addition to achievement goals and data, each school 's improvement plan needs to incorporate the EYE survey goals and data. The District's EYE program results are very similar to national research results and as thus, the EYE program should continue. Annual reports such as this one will help establish whether the results are due to the phenomenon of change itself or to the continuity of instruction time. 20 References Kirk, Phillip J. Jr. (2000, February). Year-round schools and achievement in North Carolina. Evaluation Brief, 2 (2). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web :http:/ /ncpublicschoo ls .org/ accountability I evaluation/ eval brief s/vo 12n2-yr. html. 21\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":9,"next_page":10,"prev_page":8,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":96,"total_count":419,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":418},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":60},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":42},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":23},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":5},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas Policy Foundation","hits":2},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Quality Education and Management Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":419},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":413},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":307},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":287},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":280},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":229},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":204},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":174},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Student assistance programs","hits":139},{"value":"School integration","hits":138}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":417},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":415},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":411},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":405},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Maryland, 39.00039, -76.74997","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, 44.25029, -85.50033","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":415},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Missouri","hits":1},{"value":"Texas","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1995","hits":88},{"value":"1993","hits":74},{"value":"1994","hits":74},{"value":"1996","hits":72},{"value":"1992","hits":64},{"value":"1999","hits":59},{"value":"2001","hits":59},{"value":"1997","hits":58},{"value":"1991","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":53},{"value":"2000","hits":52},{"value":"1990","hits":40},{"value":"1998","hits":40},{"value":"2004","hits":40},{"value":"2002","hits":38},{"value":"1989","hits":33},{"value":"2005","hits":31},{"value":"2006","hits":21},{"value":"1986","hits":10},{"value":"1988","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"2007","hits":8},{"value":"2008","hits":8},{"value":"1987","hits":7},{"value":"2010","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":6},{"value":"2009","hits":6},{"value":"2011","hits":6},{"value":"1980","hits":5},{"value":"1981","hits":5},{"value":"1982","hits":5},{"value":"1983","hits":5},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"2012","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":3},{"value":"1951","hits":3},{"value":"1952","hits":3},{"value":"1953","hits":3},{"value":"1954","hits":3},{"value":"1955","hits":3},{"value":"1956","hits":3},{"value":"1957","hits":3},{"value":"1958","hits":3},{"value":"1959","hits":3},{"value":"1960","hits":3},{"value":"1961","hits":3},{"value":"1962","hits":3},{"value":"1963","hits":3},{"value":"1964","hits":3},{"value":"1965","hits":3},{"value":"1966","hits":3},{"value":"1967","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1972","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"2013","hits":3},{"value":"2014","hits":3},{"value":"2015","hits":2},{"value":"2016","hits":2},{"value":"2017","hits":2},{"value":"2018","hits":2},{"value":"2019","hits":2},{"value":"2020","hits":2},{"value":"2021","hits":2},{"value":"2022","hits":2},{"value":"2023","hits":2},{"value":"2024","hits":2},{"value":"1910","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1910","max":"2024","count":1171,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":244},{"value":"reports","hits":71},{"value":"legal documents","hits":38},{"value":"judicial records","hits":36},{"value":"correspondence","hits":10},{"value":"handbooks","hits":9},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":7},{"value":"budgets","hits":6},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":417},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Photographs Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":418},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":419}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}