{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"guan_ua20-002_har-ua20-002-0004","title":"Ken Dious interviewed by Venus Jackson, 11 March 2020.","collection_id":"guan_ua20-002","collection_title":"UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, 2019-2020","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Dious, Kenneth","Jackson, Venus"],"dc_date":["2020-03-11"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview Dious discusses his experience as one of the first African Americans to attend the University of Georgia. He shares details about his time as the first African American to wear a UGA football uniform, his experience as a young civil rights protester, and the benefits of starting the Black Student Unions at UGA as both an undergraduate as well as a student of the law school.","Kenneth Dious was born in Athens, Georgia and attended Athens-Clarke County public schools. After graduating from high school, he attended Savannah State College and later transferred to the University of Georgia. At UGA he earned a degree in Business Administration in 1968. After a brief stint in the United States Army, and receiving an honorable discharge, Ken returned to the University of Georgia to pursue a Masters Degree in Math Education. Dious then took a position as a cost accountant with the Georgia Lockheed Martin Corporation in Marietta, Georgia. He returned to school a year later, entering the University Of Georgia School Of Law where he earned his Juris Doctor in 1973. In 1974 he opened a law office in Athens as a sole practitioner, becoming the first African American to do so in Northeast Georgia.","Interviewed by Venus Jackson."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/UA20-002.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Georgia","African American college students","African American students","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Ken Dious interviewed by Venus Jackson, 11 March 2020."],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Hargrett Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://purl.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/har-ua20-002_0004/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, UA20-002_004, University Archives, University of Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Hargrett Library."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound recording (ca. 85 min.) : digital, stereo"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Dious, Kenneth"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"guan_ua20-002_har-ua20-002-0003","title":"Janis Ware interviewed by Ashley Carter, 27 September 2019.","collection_id":"guan_ua20-002","collection_title":"UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, 2019-2020","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Ware, Janis","Carter, Ashley"],"dc_date":["2019-09-27"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview Ware discusses why she enrolled at UGA and what her student experience was like academically and socially.","Janis Ware is the publisher of The Atlanta Voice, a newspaper serving the city's African American community since 1966. She is also the Executive Director of SUMMECH Community Development Corporation, an organization that works to build affordable housing for first-time home buyers in Atlanta's Mechanicsville neighborhood. Ware graduated from the University of Georgia's College of Business Administration in 1977, becoming one of the first African American women to do so. She is an Atlanta native and an alumna of Booker T. Washington High School.","Interviewed by Ashley Carter."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/UA20-002.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Georgia","African American college students","African American students","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Janis Ware interviewed by Ashley Carter, 27 September 2019."],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Hargrett Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://purl.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/har-ua20-002_0003/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, UA20-002_003, University Archives, University of Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Hargrett Library."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound recording (ca. 34 min.) : digital, stereo"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Ware, Janis"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"guan_ua20-002_har-ua20-002-0002","title":"Dr. Ben Rucker interviewed by Ashley Carter, 25 July 2019.","collection_id":"guan_ua20-002","collection_title":"UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, 2019-2020","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Rucker, Ben","Carter, Ashley"],"dc_date":["2019-07-25"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Dr. Rucker discusses his experience attending the University of Georgia, including his decision to enroll, his involvement with local activism, his experience as a transfer student, and his thoughts on UGA athletics during the years he attended.","Dr. Benjamin Rucker is a physician specializing in internal medicine in Augusta, Georgia. He earned his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia in 1975. Prior to medical school he attended Gainesville Junior College (now the University of North Georgia, Gainesville Campus) where he earned his associates in science. He then transferred to the University of Georgia where he completed his bachelor's degree in science in 1972. Dr. Rucker is a native of Gainesville, Georgia where he attended E.E. Butler High School.","Interviewed by Ashley Carter."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/UA20-002.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Georgia","African American college students","College integration--Georgia","College integration","Students","Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Ben Rucker interviewed by Ashley Carter, 25 July 2019."],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Hargrett Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://purl.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/har-ua20-002_0002/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, UA20-002_002, University Archives, University of Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Hargrett Library."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound recording (ca.37 min.) : digital, stereo"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Rucker, Ben"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"guan_ua20-002_har-ua20-002-0001","title":"Nawanna Lewis Miller interviewed by Ashley Carter, 30 June 2019.","collection_id":"guan_ua20-002","collection_title":"UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, 2019-2020","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Miller, Nawanna Lewis","Carter, Ashley"],"dc_date":["2019-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Miller discusses her experience as a young African American woman attending the recently desegregated University of Georgia. Among other topics, she describes the forces that drove her to create the Pamoja Dance Company, a program that is still active at the University of Georgia.","Pastor Nawanna Lewis Miller is Founding Chair and Leading Director of the Institute for Christian Discipleship, Inc. in Marietta, Georgia. She is a graduate of H.M. Turner High School in Atlanta, Georgia and one of the early African American graduates of the University of Georgia, where she earned her ABJ degree in Broadcast Journalism in 1973. After UGA, Miller went on to earn a Master of Arts in Organizational Communications and a Master of Divinity Degree from Howard University.","Interviewed by Ashley Carter."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/UA20-002.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Georgia","African American college students","College integration--Georgia","College integration","Students","Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Nawanna Lewis Miller interviewed by Ashley Carter, 30 June 2019."],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Hargrett Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://purl.libs.uga.edu/hargrett/har-ua20-002_0001/ohms"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["UGA Black Alumni Oral History Project, UA20-002_001, University Archives, University of Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Hargrett Library."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (ca. 95 min.) : digital, stereo"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Miller, Nawanna Lewis"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1861","title":"Court filings: District Court, exhibits 22-31 from response to statement of facts, enrollment history, oral depositions, and examination of witnesses.","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":["2012-03-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Arkansas--Little Rock","African Americans--Education","School attendance","Students","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, exhibits 22-31 from response to statement of facts, enrollment history, oral depositions, and examination of witnesses."],"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/1861"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["138 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_600","title":"'Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District,'' draft","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":["Brooks, Roy G."],"dc_date":["2005"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Students"],"dcterms_title":["'Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District,'' draft"],"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/600"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDr. Roy G. Brooks, superintendent, Little Rock School District\n2005 Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District Demographics Student Achievement Perceptions Processes Dr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent IFounded: Enrollment: Grade Levels: Vision: yG. L^rintendeni Little Rock School District Portfolio I/)/?.! 7-7'1 [ks 1853 View of downtown Little Rock from across the Arkansas River 25,868 (2004-2005) Pre-K (6 weeks) through 12 To become the highest achieving urban school district in the nation. Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 2 of 2 Background Demographic Data Achieve! [t Dau Pen ftual Table of Contents page 3 6 125 197 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c L c c c c 1 r o o o o Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 3 of 3 Background The City of Little Rock has a population of 184,000 (July 2004 estimate), 40 percent of whom are African-American and three percent or more Hispanic or Latino. This composition contrasts with the general US population, 12.3 per cent of whom are African-American and 12.5 percent Hispanic or Latino\nbut it is more similar to many cities in the southern US. Historically, African-Americans of Arkai and/d natkhave migrated from rural areas and small towns to cities where education (iKerresources were more available to them. This has contributed to Little Ss larger proportion of African-American citizens than many other cities and rowi The median i the US medii a] igh school (hig t^r degrees ci of Little Rock residents is 34.5 years, less than a year younger than ige, and 85.9 percent of those 25 years or older have graduated from J^an the US figure of 80.4 percent). Those with bachelors or ipose 35.5 percent, compared to 24.4 percent of the US, adults.\nr However, the median household income of $37,572 is less than the US median of hearly $42,000. Cil ui is enjoy benefits of the state governments seat here along with a growing university which includes a law school and an expanding university medical Center. The population supports a prosperous symphony orchestra, ballet and opera, several theater groups, an active art museum, and much popular music. Within a half hours drive one can enjoy boating, fishing, hunting, hiking, and other outdoor recreation. Public education in Little Rock began in 1853 under the City Councils governance and the administration of the City Councils Committee on Schools. This Committee hoped that the event was \"... the commencement of a system which will fully meet the wants of the whole community. It The States constitution provides for adequate education for its children, and the General Assembly (state legislature) grants authority to local districts. In 1869, following the war-time suspension of public education, the citizens of Little Rock established a school district and elected a Board of Directors. Frederick Kramer was its first president. J J T) Ti The LRSD enrollment in 1878-79 was 2,142. In the 1890s, the Districts first African-American teacher, Lottie (Charlotte) E. Stephens, a graduate of Oberlin College, taught history and Latin at Union School, where Jefferson G. Ish was principal and later a math teacher. Union was one of three schools for African- American students and their only high school. ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 4 of 4 LRSDs flagship, Little Rock (later named Central) High School opened in 1927. In 1957, it was thrust into global spotlight. After Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which stated that the \"separate but equal\" policy was failing to educate equally African-American students, the Little Rock Board of Education planned to integrate its schools. In September 1957, however, hostile opposition, exploited by Governor Orval Faubus, arose against admitting nine African-American students to C c c c Little Ai^ thie A bui itizenXvi Jtock Central High School. President Eisenhower ordered troops of the U.S. Airborne Division to escort the students into the school and federalized Lansas National Guard. During the summer of 1958, the Governor closed the lublic high schools to prevent further desegregation efforts, and Little Rock's :d against the immediate integration of all of the District's schools. The ligh schots(s\\|osed during the 1958-59 school year. City leaders led a recall of the three segreg^ol ^ened school^ iHp^ision of tl District Court. ist School Board members. In the fall of 1959, the School Board mi rus This Supervision continued !! I! P ' i . .W*. 'toI arf To nnger than that of rfner US district, me right is the ,ittle Rock nine, the African-American students who entered Central High School in the fall of 1957, in front of the school at a commemoration of the event. C C T J C u From 1973 until 1987, elementary schools divided into grades 1 to 3 and grades 4 to 6. Some schools began the program for 4-year-olds, Pre-K, in 1989. The new Rockefeller Elementary, built to replace schools demolished by an expressway in central Little Rock, now has programs for infants (6 weeks old) through grade 8. As the result of its suit against Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, and Arkansas Department of Education, LRSD annexed 14 schools from the county in 1987. C c c c c In 2000, voters approved a 5-milI tax increase, which raised more than $115 million for much-needed building improvements and expansions and technology upgrades at all schools and district offices and a dedicated building maintenance fund. In Sentember 2002 the U. S. District Court declared the LRSD comnliant, but it c cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 5 of 5 ordered program evaluations. In 2004, the Court ordered LRSD to hire a team of professional evaluators who would indefinitely evaluate its programs. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department is one of the few in the nations districts that investigates its educational data scientifically in addition to publishing test results. In 2005, it begins formative evaluations with district and school portfolios. a a a a Li ^5 Vi h'S cewers. \u0026lt;1 I Dr. Roy G. Brooks (in class in the photo to the left), became superintendent in 2004 and set the goal for LRSD to become the highest achieving urban school district. Today, LRSD operates 34 elementary schools (Pre-K - 5), eight middle schools (6 - 8), five high schools (9 - 12), a career-technical center, an accelerated learning center and two alternative learning It employs approximately 4,000 people to educate its nearly 26,000 IFudents. More than 55% of teachers hold a master's degree or higher, and many have been honored with state and national awards, including the National Education Association Salute to Excellence in Education Award, the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award and the NASSP/MetLife Arkansas Principal of the Year Award. Students, who are offered more Advanced Placement (AP) and Pre-AP courses than any others in the state, attend the finest colleges and universities in the nation (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale, to name a few). The LRSD regularly has more National Merit Semifmalists than any other school district in the state. A Li Li J J Li J a a a a Sources'. LRSD archives (School Board minutes, annual reports, employee directories, etc.). Hobby, Selma\n1991 research project about the Little Rock School District. \"Constitutional Writes,\" the official newsletter of Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. Summer 2003\nvol. 1, issue 1. Arkansas Democrat. Monday, May 7, 1979\np. IB. J 'J C Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 6 of 6 ccc c c cc c LC c ccC C c L ccc c. L LL LL C C C 'D Page 7 of 7 Year 2000-01 Number 25,226 Little Rock School District Portfolio 2001-02 J Demographic Data Little Rock School District Student Enrollment by Year 2000-01 through 2004-05 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 J 'J 25,233 25,331 25,278 25,690 School District Student Enrollment 2000-01 through 2005-06 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 8 of 8 c cc Little Rock School District Student Enrollment Percent by Gender 2000-01 through 2004-05 ccc 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c Male 50.1 50.1 49.9 50.0 50.2 c Female 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.0 49.8 CC 49.9 2000-01 Enrollment by Gender  Male  Female 50.1 49.9 50.1 50.0 49.8 50.1 49.9 50.0 50.2 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 C C C cc ccccccccccc ccccccc c ccc cccc c Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 9 of 9 lol District Percent Ethnicity  African- American White Hispanic  Other J J 'i Little Rock School District Portfolio 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 - 20.0 - 10.0 0.0 Page 10 of 10 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment by Percent Ethnicity 2000-2001 through 2004-2005 African-American White Hispanic 2000-01 68.2 27.3 2.9 2001-02 68.7 26.8 2002-03 68.9 2003-04 68.7 ter 1.6 3.2 1.7 25.7 25.1 3.6 4.2 2004-05 68.6 24.3 5.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 Enrollment by Percent Ethnicity  African-American  White Hispanic Other C' c c. C\", c\nc\nCT. C. C, C, c: c: c, c\nc\nc, c, Qr .X: Hz HL 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c c c c c. c, c c. c. or. c: c\nc: c, c: c c C'Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 11 of 11 I Little Rock School District  Student Enrollment of Pre-K through Grade 6 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Pre-K 924 1,208 1,257 949 1,292 K 1,933 1,937 2,026 2,003 2,016 Grade 1 2,027 1,995 1,979 2,082 2,057 Grade 2 1,958 1,965 1,906 1,968 1,995 Grade 3 1,933 1,916 1,954 1,920 1,898 '3  '4 Grade 4 1,991 1,893 1,869 1,972 1,888 ide 5 2,001 1,976 1,849 1,840 1,950 G, 1,935 1,959 1,946 1,837 1,834 I1 I Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 12 of 12 Grade 7 8 9 10 11 12 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment of Grades 7 through 12 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 1,797 1,719 2,014 1,814 1,623 1,557 1,880 2,012 1,979 1,821 1,765 1,813 1,964 1,877 1,994 2,031 2,091 2,321 1,736 1,774 1,781 1,825 1,601 1,528 1,561 1,558 1,408 1,387 1,331 1,358  c ccc c C C. c: c: c\ncc C. c: 2400 2200  2000  1800 a 1600  1400 1200 1000 - 3 z 800 600 400 200 0 c: c. c\nc. Little Rock School District Student Enrollment of Grade 7 through Grade 12 2000-01 through 2004-05 1 8  2001-02 9 Ruin 10 II 12  2000-01  2002-03  2003-04  200 c\nc c: c: cc c: c: cc c cccc c: c: C' C' c: c: c: c: c. Little Rock School District Por^blio Page 13 of 13 Little Rock School District Enrollment of Cohorts Starting in Grades K through 3 School Years 2001-01 through 2004-05 Advancing grades K through 3 1 through 4 2 through 5 3 through 6 4 through 7 Starting gradcs/years 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 K (Cohort A) 1 (Cohort B) 1,933 2,027 1,958 1,933 1,995 1,965 1,916 1,893 1,906 1,954 1,869 1,849 1,920 1,972 1,840 1,837 1,888 1,950 1,834 1,797 'J 2200  2000 ' 1800 ' IfiOO - 1400  1200 1000 800  600  400  200 - 0 ' Little Rock School District Student Cohorts A to D 2000-01 to 2005-06 ls5' i2 i is i *SSS\u0026gt; SSo, S-, Illi S Cohort A (K)  2(100-01 Cohort B (Grade 1) 2001-02  2002-03 Cohort C (Grade 2) Cohort D (Grade 3)  2(IO3-(\u0026gt;4 12(X\u0026gt;44)5  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 14 of 14 - Little Rock School District Enrollment of Cohorts Starting in Grades 4 through 8 School Years 2001-01 through 2004-05 Advancing grades Starting grades/years K (Cohort E) 1 (Cohort F) (Cohort G) 3 (Cdhort H) C' cc C' C CC K through 3 1 through 4 2 through 5 3 through 6 4 through 7 c\n2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c 1,991 2,001 1,935 1,797 1,976 1,959 1,880 1,765 1,946 2,012 1,813 2,031 1,979 1,964 2,091 1,781 1,877 2,321 1,825 1,558 cc c: c C' c\nC Little Rock School District Student Cohorts E to H 2000*01 to 2005-06 C' c. 1800 - 1600 -! 1200 I I 3 1000  z 800 600 - 400 - I ' 2000 -I 200 -  0 4 Illi Q c: cc c: c: c: c: c: c: Cohon E (Cirsde 4) Cotx^rt F (Grade 5)  2(X)14)2  2(X)2-O3 Cohort G (Grade 6)  2\u0026lt;NI34)4 Cohon H (Grade 7)  2(X)44)S  c c: c c: c. c. c: c\nc\nc: c: 1 J Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 15 of 15 3 1 1 \"J 1 J i 1 '1 'I Little Rock School District Teachers 2000-01 through 2004-2005 e CuC Ho i\u0026gt; I Z 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 i - 2000-01 2004-05 81% 19% 2000-01 Little Rock School District Gender of Teachers by Percent 2000-01 through 2004-05  Male  Female 81% 82% 81% 81% 19% 18% 19% 19% 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 16 of 16 Bale Little Rock School District Teacher Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) by School 1999-00 through 2004-05 School 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-2004 2004-05 Elementary 18.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.5 Baseline 18.0 16.0 15.0 16.0 16.5 Booker arver (^cot lale DodX\\ Fair Pari Forest Park Franklin Fulbright 27.0 18.0 24.0 27.0 19.0 13.0 13.0 14.5 27.0 21.0 28.0 16.0 24.0 26.0 20.0 12.0 11.0 14.0 22.0 21.0 29.0 17.0 24.4 27.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 29.0 17.0 24.0 27.0 19.0 13.0 11.0 16.0 21.0 23.0 30.0 18.5 26.0 31.0 17.8 17.5 10.5 19.7 22.0 28.5 c c Ccc C, c\nc c. c c. c: c\nc c: c\nc. cc Geyer Springs Jefferson Xing Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 15.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.5 IS 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 20.0 29.0 18.0 18.0 14.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 28.0 16.0 18.0 14.0 15.0 18.0 20.0 28.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 14.0 19.0 19.0 22.5 c 27.0 28.2 c 14.0 17.0 c 17.0 15.0 13.0 20.5 16.0 10.5 c c c Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine 14.0 14.0 24.0 18.0 14.0 14.0 22.0 20.0 13.0 14.4 21.0 13.0 14.0 24.2 Stephens Terry Wakefield 18.0 24.0 16.0 26.0 Washington Watson 30.0 21.0 Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Middle School Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson 13.0 21.0 16.5 15.0 52.4 53.0 51.6 48.0 51.0 22.0 18.0 25.0 21.0 13.0 21.0 15.0 14.0 53.9 54.0 50.6 47.5 53.3 22.0 20.0 26.0 23.0 16.0 27.0 21.0 13.0 21.0 15.0 14.0 52.2 55.0 48.6 47.0 53.0 20.0 16.0 26.0 23.0 17.0 27.0 22.0 13.0 21.0 16.0 13.0 51.2 53.0 49.0 47.5 54.0 14.5 13.8 24.0 19.0 26.0 27.5 20.5 30.5 24.0 14.0 23.0 16.5 13.5 51.2 53.0 47.4 47.0 53.1 cc ccC c\nLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 17 of 17 3 1 Little Rock School District Teacher Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) hy School 1999-00 through 2004-05 School \"I -3 'J 'i '1 J Cloverdale Mabelvale Mann High School Central Fair Park cClellan 2000-01 54.0 40.8 58.2 117.5 67.2 89.1 81.6 76.9 0.5 16.5 2001-02 54.0 46.8 59.4 2002-03 51.0 47.2 56.3 2003-2004 54.0 49.3 2004-05 51.1 48.8 59.7 59.6 121.0 64.0 114.5 64.2 93.1 81.3 77.6 17.0 17.5 86.6 71.8 71.6 16.0 14.0 12.5 123.4 70.5 89.6 75.8 73.7 19.0 13.0 135.4 77.5 87.6 70.5 75.4 14.5 20.0 15.0 13.5 '2Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 18 of 18 School Elementary Badgett Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 1 2 3 4 5 K 42 36 23 20 n 21 21 33 31 27 22 19 63 69 54 47 49 40 c c C' ccc c\nC c: c: c. c: c: c: c: Bale Baseline P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p Total 17 0 17 c. Booker 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 186 153 339 c 63 42 51 51 42 249 c. 52 45 49 46 0 45 36 336 52 48 44 38 42 0 53 34 311 89 99 106 90 95 65 544 50 44 35 54 14 55 33 327 47 40 39 38 38 6 39 35 282 77 92 113 113 87 88 570 36 48 40 39 14 58 35 321 45 46 45 41 45 5 40 32 299 93 88 108 116 113 94 612 53 35 43 45 0 62 35 324 47 48 45 41 40 0 41 36 298 103 99 86 116 118 83 605 51 48 34 47 0 60 37 319 44 42 45 38 42 0 41 39 291 95 107 104 94 112 92 604 242 220 201 231 28 280 176 1,627 235 224 218 196 207 11 214 176 1,481 457 485 517 529 525 422 2,935 Brady 1 49 67 53 35 47 251 c: c c cc c: cc c c. c C c C c c\nz: z: I 1 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 19 of 19 Little Rock School District \"J Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Grade 2 2000-01 54 2001-02 46 2002-03 60 2003-04 58 2004-05 35 'J J Carver Chicot 1 Cloverdale 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 50 54 56 0 64 18 345 80 91 82 88 93 73 507 76 76 87 71 78 0 84 34 506 70 36 44 55 7 59 18 332 78 85 85 84 89 72 493 83 76 72 73 75 19 73 35 506 74 40 35 44 7 55 18 312 83 78 89 87 80 75 492 70 75 74 67 75 18 79 36 494 61 64 52 51 0 59 18 337 87 89 85 89 79 73 502 76 74 73 75 68 0 81 36 483 65 50 40 45 0 64 38 319 82 80 91 84 87 73 497 76 86 79 71 86 0 79 59 536 74 Total 253 240 225 251 14 301 110 1,645 410 423 432 432 428 366 2,491 381 387 385 357 382 37 396 200 2,525 344 1 1 J 'J 1 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total Dodd 1 2 51 49 64 72 58 35 399 32 32 73 57 50 70 65 36 425 30 34 72 56 52 55 80 35 411 29 34 59 55 ,49 42 n 34 381 35 34 58 42 44 43 59 40 360 34 39 313 259 259 282 339 180 1,976 160 173 Brady 3 4 5 30 26 38 26 23 21 35 18 16 30 39 18 36 41 37 157 147 130 Little Rock School District Portfolio School Fair Park Page 20 of 20 Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 2000-01 0 42 18 218 45 33 29 25 2001-02 8 29 17 188 39 35 24 21 2002-03 10 40 18 200 32 37 38 19 2003-04 0 32 18 206 30 25 27 30 2004-05 0 37 37 261 29 25 15 19 Total 18 180 108 1,073 175 155 133 114 Z'.- c\nc\nc c\nC c C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Fulbright 5 K p Total 1 2 3 4 5 K p Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p 1 2 3 4 5 EE K p 16 40 36 224 47 52 42 48 57 40 18 304 71 58 68 71 80 0 61 54 463 67 62 72 68 74 0 72 18 22 37 30 208 47 50 48 47 41 53 18 304 63 47 38 58 61 10 60 50 387 71 71 71 13 78 7 11 18 28 40 35 229 68 43 44 48 50 59 17 329 52 59 46 43 47 13 60 54 374 89 67 12 76 69 6 11 18 23 36 35 206 68 65 45 41 51 57 18 345 66 57 56 48 40 0 63 54 384 84 101 71 1^ 74 0 80 18 26 34 38 186 69 58 55 43 35 60 40 360 67 59 54 46 48 0 55 57 386 88 80 94 IZ 83 0 91 40 115 187 174 1,053 299 268 234 227 234 269 111 1,642 319 280 262 266 276 23 299 269 1,994 399 381 380 3i\u0026gt;9 378 13 391 112 Q. c Ccc c c c ccc ccc cC c\nQ. c. C c: C c\nc: C-C c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 21 of 21 1 Little Rock School District i Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Grade Total 2000-01 433 2001-02 466 2002-03 474 2003-04 502 2004-05 554 Total 2,429 Geyer Springs 1 2 46 48 50 49 38 50 47 41 47 41 228 229 'J J Gibbs 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total Jefferson 1 2 3 4 5 EE K 50 50 55 53 34 336 60 44 45 46 46 58 299 76 59 72 58 63 0 59 50 52 48 38 33 320 69 60 45 45 46 39 304 63 72 66 76 51 7 56 47 51 48 40 34 308 45 64 65 47 47 40 308 53 63 69 68 n 7 60 48 53 51 40 34 314 46 45 68 67 48 40 314 63 67 67 69 59 0 60 41 44 47 39 38 297 45 44 45 65 71 41 311 60 60 73 68 66 0 62 236 250 249 210 173 1,575 265 257 268 270 258 218 1,536 315 321 347 339 316 14 297 'J a J P Total 17 404 18 409 18 415 18 403 40 429 111 2,060 King King Mabelvale 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 .. 85 98 91 93 72 85 71 595 50 51 53 66 81 87 86 76 87 82 70 569 35 42 34 37 76 80 83 88 62 96 68 553 38 35 38 35 87 79 . 84 88 86 86 71 581 40 40 37 40 98 90 75 84 87 90 80 604 35 39 33 36 427 434 419 429 394 439 360 2,902 198 207 195 214Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 22 of 22 School McDermott Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 2000-01 59 0 47 18 344 60 67 53 2001-02 55 12 37 18 270 62 63 62 2002-03 41 10 39 18 254 59 62 65 2003-04 35 0 38 18 248 64 64 63 2004-05 40 0 38 36 257 63 65 63 Total 230 22 199 108 1,373 308 321 306 c: c\nc\nc: c\nc\nc: c c: cc cc c Meadowcliff Mitchell 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K 63 49 55 18 365 36 33 36 50 46 51 9 261 42 37 47 47 47 0 37 51 58 54 68 294 66 44 50 51 260 c 50 57 55 56 273 C 18 18 18 40 112 c 372 49 42 39 43 49 40 17 279 42 47 47 46 44 14 39 363 47 50 46 ^7 43 60 28 321 46 42 41 43 48 7 39 368 44 49 50 49 40 60 35 327 41 34 39 44 39 0 40 406 51 44 45 56 53 60 40 349 23 24 20 23 29 0 17 1,874 227 218 216 245 231 271 129 1,537 194 184 194 203 207 21 172 Mitchell P Total 18 275 18 297 18 284 otter Creek 1 2 3 4 5 K P 18 255 19 155 91 1,266 75 70 47 52 50 55 18 69 66 68 54 50 72 17 74 65 69 66 55 80 18 89 60 75 68 64 78 18 81 90 67 71 81 80 39 388 351 326 311 300 365 110 CCc c c c cCCC c c\nc C c C I Little Rock School District Porifolio Page 23 of 23 School \"1 \"a J J 'A '2 'J '31 '2 1 Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Romine Stephens Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 2000-01 367 48 48 42 63 51 58 0 310 41 42 35 40 33 36 34 261 49 57 51 49 54 62 88 410 53 41 48 38 30 0 59 35 304 48 40 46 2001-02 396 44 42 50 40 61 44 0 281 40 35 42 37 39 38 36 267 46 49 49 47 49 55 92 387 53 43 36 40 36 1 41 32 282 74 88 71 2002-03 427 45 41 44 52 42 39 18 281 43 44 41 46 47 40 36 297 64 49 57 45 58 58 95 426 36 42 37 30 37 17 52 36 287 100 74 92 2003-04 452 39 42 48 46 54 38 18 285 47 43 33 46 47 40 35 291 56 51 43 44 44 56 98 392 41 39 ,40 41 28 0 51 36 276 87 97 76 2004-05 509 46 38 44 48 50 40 20 286 41 38 31 35 38 39 40 262 66 71 56 51 51 55 103 453 47 47 35 48 47 0 60 37 321 74 69 85 Total 2,151 222 211 228 249 258 219 56 1,443 212 202 182 204 204 193 181 1,378 281 277 256 236 256 286 476 2,068 230 212 196 197 178 18 263 176 1,470 383 368 370Little Rock School District Portfolio School Page 24 of 24 Terry Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 2000-01 53 48 0 56 35 326 85 68 2001-02 74 73 9 99 52 540 74 83 2002-03 69 84 12 79 54 564 99 72 2003-04 84 65 0 83 54 546 100 86 2004-05 64 69 0 80 58 499 104 97 Total 344 339 21 397 253 2,475 462 406 cc c\nc\ncc c C, c. c. c. c. Wakefield Washington Washington Watson 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K 81 76 87 77. 18 487 58 58 48 53 54 52 17 340 63 77 69 69 84 0 71 53 486 71 82 61 72 54 74 68 82 79 99 18 503 70 59 65 56 56 58 17 381 75 52 61 63 63 13 77 51 455 72 63 81 54 72 77 7^ 65 87 380 71 78 96 18 513 40 55 41 50 50 68 0 304 67 68 53 70 64 16 69 54 461 85 68 73 82 56 79 77 71 97 18 514 78 41 69 55 41 58 0 342 75 61 73 54 71 0 80 51 465 87 73 69 76 77 78 7A 80 96 39 577 71 73 50 79 56 80 40 449 95 79 73 84 71 0 80 80 562 75 7A 61 62 63 80 380 395 460 111 2,594 317 286 273 293 257 316 74 1,816 375 337 329 340 353 29 377 289 2,429 390 360 345 346 322 388 c. c c. ccc cc c cc C c\nc\nc: c: c:  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 25 of 25 School Western Hills 'J -1 Williams Wilson Wilson Woodruff Middle Cloverdale Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K Total 1 2 3 4 5 EE K P Total 1 2 3 4 5 K P Total 6 7 2000-01 36 450 33 46 41 45 44 37 18 264 68 67 84 89 88 58 454 58 43 39 46 43 0 43 16 288 39 38 41 34 35 37 53 277 293 237 2001-02 32 451 42 44 46 37 49 39 18 275 61 67 80 87 91 60 446 42 45 40 34 28 15 31 17 252 43 35 32 42 38 40 35 265 288 2002-03 36 479 49 41 48 50 34 39 18 279 64 63 88 90 95 60 460 37 48 43 35 36 22 40 17 278 48 35 40 34 42 39 35 273 273 282 2003-04 36 496 49 46 43 46 54 40 18 296 68 69 83 88 92 59 459 50 39 39 52 42 0 42 18 282 37 ,40 36 34 33 40 35 255 259 262 2004-05 40 455 42 40 37 47 36 40 20 262 68 68 89 88 89 59 461 41 51 38 33 59 0 43 19 284 37 33 37 28 25 36 39 235 233 241 Total 180 2,331 215 217 215 225 217 195 92 1,376 329 334 424 442 455 296 2,280 228 226 199 200 208 37 199 87 1,384 204 181 186 172 173 192 197 1,305 1,346 1,299 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 26 of 26 School Dunbar Forest Heights Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 8 SM Total 6 7 8 Total 6 2000-01 219 0 749 278 226 239 743 274 2001-02 242 1 808 256 254 226 736 258 2002-03 252 2 809 265 240 221 726 258 2003-04 269 0 790 257 262 234 753 264 2004-05 208 0 682 255 242 249 746 222 Total 1,190 3 3,838 1,311 1,224 1,169 3,704 1,276 c c C C c C' cccc C cc c Henderson Mabelvale Mabelvale 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 248 235 0 757 198 184 178 0 560 196 173 145 0 514 Mann 6 7 8 Total 290 272 279 841 256 247 26 787 219 215 193 42 669 205 185 158 14 562 286 276 266 828 268 257 19 802 218 221 207 30 676 219 234 193 17 663 292 289 269 850 248 268 0 780 186 231 246 0 663 195 240 215 0 650 294 285 289 868 230 235 0 687 235 183 211 0 629 209 191 232 0 632 293 294 286 873 Pulaski Heights 6 7 8 SM Total 224 267 249 0 740 Southwest 6 7 8 SM Total 181 182 163 0 526 225 225 241 9 700 213 170 161 15 559 210 250 226 8 694 207 205 173 23 608 222 225 246 257 0 725 159 191 168 0 518 244 239 0 708 149 165 178 0 492 1,250 1,242 45 3,813 1,056 1,034 1,035 72 3,197 1,024 1,023 943 31 3,021 1,455 1,416 1,389 4,260 1,106 1,232 1,212 17 3,567 909 913 843 38 2,703 CccC c: c: c c: c: c\nc: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c\nC' c c: c: c: C  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 27 of 27 School High Central 'J Hall Metro Parkview Parkview Fair McClellan Garland Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 9 10 11 12 ss Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 10 12 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 6 7 8 2000-01 1 2001-02 1 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 593 531 426 509 0 2,059 437 412 319 277 0 1,445 299 293 287 274 1,153 275 212 223 185 0 895 361 294 280 205 0 1,140 1 8 12 626 479 426 401 0 1,932 414 380 340 258 18 1,410 300 282 284 270 1,136 282 246 223 166 24 941 314 289 254 200 16 1,073 9 22 31 656 547 409 387 1 2,000 394 346 319 277 19 1,355 3 4 1 8 300 284 277 269 1,130 310 255 220 164 25 974 324 295 230 194 14 1,057 4 23 15 678 574 504 348 0 2,104 391 364 292 271 0 1,318 0 0 1 1 294 290 284 258 1,126 367 271 213 172 0 1,023 326 248 230 196 0 1,000 1 14 18 743 560 482 413 0 2,198 524 354 333 248 0 1,459 301 280 274 253 1,108 362 305 220 171 0 1,058 297 271 183 174 0 925 13 31 39 3,296 2,691 2,247 2,058 1 10,293 2,160 1,856 1,603 1,331 37 6,987 3 4 2 9 1,494 1,429 1,406 1,324 5,653 1,596 1,289 1,099 858 49 4,891 1,622 1,397 1,177 969 30 5,195 28 98 115 I i Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 28 of 28 School LRSD-R ACC Little Rock School District Enrollment by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Grade 9 10 11 12 SM Total 3 4 5 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total 20 13 6 3 0 63 26 27 35 88 29 59 82 104 274 30 16 8 4 2 122 14 34 33 81 28 44 66 109 247 34 21 6 0 0 103 10 22 67 95 194 32 18 8 3 0 94 3 16 30 82 131 93 45 31 9 0 261 1 10 35 90 136 209 113 59 19 2 643 40 61 68 169 71 151 280 480 982 c ccccc c c C Ccccc c c c\nc c: c: c: c c: c: c: c c. c\nQ~. 1 c\nc: I.. Middle High Districl Elementary Little Rock School District Portfolio Little Rock School District Percentage of Students Qualifying for Free/Reduced Lunch _______________ 2000-01 through 2004-05_______________ Level / Year 2000-01 62% 2001-02 65% 2002-03 66% 2003-04 66% Page 29 of 29 2004-05 67% 54% 57% 60% 58% 63% 27% 51% 33% 54% 34% 56% Free/Reduced Lunch Students 35% 56% 40% 59% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Elementary Middle High District 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 30 of 30 Little Rock School District Student Mobility Number and Percent by School 2000-01 through 2004-05 School Elementary Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park\nJ ForestPgH Fra^iWlrr^ 'Qelier Sprii^ Gi^\\_ Jeffelnon^ King \\ \\ Mabelvale^\\ 2000-01 Number 41 53 20 54 \\39 'WadifcKcliff J ^itch^ffx Otter Cri^ft: Pulaski Hts .. itsell .wkefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 55\\ 43 41 , 14 20 37 Z59 50 62 36 35 42 22 19 86 72 51 56 72 33 20 48 36 Percent 12.2% 17.0% 3.7% 15.7% 2.4% 19.6% 13.5% 17.9% 20.5% 6.9% \\l .9% \\9V/o 4^/o 5.0% 6.2% 12.2% 16.2% 19.2% 22.5% 9.8% 11.3% 16.1% 5.4% 6.3% 26.4% 14.8% 15.0% 11.5% 16.0% 12.5% 4.4% 16.7% 13.0% 2001-02 Number 34 55 35 59 17 47 73 26 56 19 65 39 26 9 24 33 59 68 33 52 40 34 57 21 19 60 67 44 30 76 44 14 65 34 Percent 10.4% 19.5% 6.1% 17.8% 3.4% 9.3% 17.2% 13.8% 26.9% 6.3% 16.8% 8.4% 8.1% 3.0% 5.9% 5.8% 21.9% 18.3% 11.8% 17.5% 10.1% 12.1% 21.3% 5.4% 6.7% 11.1% 13.3% 11.5% 6.6% 16.9% 16.0% 3.1% 25.8% 12.8% 2002-03 Number 49 57 18 78 14 60 70 35 40 15 43 35 36 3 28 32 36 54 50 35 47 38 37 34 20 57 44 65 21 41 34 9 50 33 Percent 15.3% 19.1% 2.9% 25.0% 2.8% 12.1% 17.0% 17.5% 17.5% 4.6% 11.5% 7.4% 11.7% 1.0% 6.7% 5.8% 14.2% 14.9% 15.6% 12.3% 11.0% 13.5% 12.5% 8.0% 7.0% 10.1% 8.6% 21.4% 4.6% 8.6% 12.2% 2.0% 18.0% 12.1% 2003-04 Number 39 51 29 62 16 70 86 45 31 19 60 32 49 3 18 28 24 49 55 16 58 29 37 40 31 75 65 48 25 76 30 6 45 15 Percent 12.0% 17.1% 4.8% 18.4% 3.2% 14.5% 22.6% 21.8% 15.0% 5.5% 15.6% 6.4% 15.6% 1.0% 4.5% 4.8% 9.7% 13.3% 16.8% 6.3% 12.8% 10.2% 12.7% 10.2% 11.2% 13.7% 12.6% 14.0% 5.4% 15.3% 10.1% 1.3% 16.0% 5.9% 2004-05 Number 46 51 39 75 42 82 57 44 31 18 70 41 44 3 23 40 70 55 34 12 46 35 36 61 58 76 81 61 64 55 30 10 38 28 Percent 14.4% 17.5% 6.5% 23.5% 8.5% 15.3% 15.8% 16.9% 16.7% 5.0% 18.1% 7.4% 14.8% 1.0% 5.4% 6.6% 27.2% 13.5% 9.7% 7.7% 9.0% 12.2% 13.7% 13.5% 18.1% 15.2% 14.0% 13.6% 11.4% 12.1% 11.5% 2.2% 13.4% 11.9% Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hts Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Hts Southwest High Schools 97 30 99 73 66 14 45 62 13.0% 4.0% 13.1% 13.0% 12.8% 1.7% 6.1% 11.8% 96 25 111 110 93 10 60 95 11.9% 3.4% 14.1% 16.4% 16.5% 1.2% 8.6% 17.0% 103 34 105 101 47 15 84 74 12.7% 4.7% 13.1% 14.9% 7.1% 1.8% 12.1% 12.2% 90 23 73 85 80 14 65 101 11.4% 3.1% 9.4% 12.8% 12.3% 1.6% 9.0% 19.5% 89 37 82 81 82 10 65 92 13.0% 5.0% 11.9% 12.9% 13.0% 1.1% 9.2% 18.7% c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c: c c c: c: c: c\nc: c: c: c: c O'. c: c: c: (T. c\nc: c:Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 31 of 31 Little Rock School District Student Mobility Number and Percent by School 2000-01 through 2004-05 School ACC Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview All Schools I Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 201 82 112 140 106 8 73.4% 4.0% 12.5% 9.7% 9.3% 0.7% 112 118 106 174 114 24 45.3% 6.1% 11.3% 12.3% 10.6% 2.1% 85 113 85 188 103 11 43.8% 5.7% 8.7% 13.9% 9.7% 1.0% 141 104 95 171 95 11 107.6% 4.9% 9.3%  13.0% 9.5% 1.0% 89 133 115 158 103 34 65.4% 6.1% 10.9% 10.8% 11.1% 3.1% I I 11.4% I 2,906 I 11.5% I 2,690 | 10,6% | 2,836 | 11.2% | 3,068 | 11.9% | Little Rock School District A^rage Attendance by Year 2000-01 through 2004-05\ncnt present Average Attendance 100% 90% 0%  80% 70% 60% 50%  40% - 30% - 20% 10% 88% 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 88% 89% 93% 90% 92% I i I t Little Rock School District Student Attendance by Year 2000-01 to 2004-05 89% 93% 90% 92% III 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 32 of 32 Little Rock School District Average Student Days Present by Grade Level 2000-01 to 2004-05 Grade K 1 2 3 4 8 All School Elementary Booker  Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell King c c c c 2000- 01 Days Present 2000- 01 Percent Rate 2001- 02 Days Present 2001- 02 Percent Rate 2002- 03 Days Present 2002- 03 Percent Rate 2003- 04 Days Present 2003- 04 Percent Rate 2004- 05 Days Present 2004- 05 Percent Rate c c c 156.05 157.78 158.98 159.53 159.42 160.47 159.30 158.49 159.48 151.72 151.65 153.13 153.60 156.91 87.7% 88.6% 89.3% ^9.6% 89.6% 90.2% \\g9.5% \\^% 85.' 85.2/s// 86.0% 86.3% 88.2% 157.85 157.78 159.55 158.80 159.24 159.48 162.47 161.12 160.87 152.89 152.90 151.60 152.60 157.65 88.7% 88.6% 89.6% 89.2% 89.5% 89.6% 91.3% 90.5% 90.4% 85.9% 85.9% 85.2% 85.7% 88.6% 165.38 166.06 166.57 166.5 166.45 167.14 166.72 166.13 165.75 160.36 160.94 161.67 160.32 164.77 92.9% 93.3% 93.6% 93.5% 93.5% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 93.1% 90.1% 90.4% 90.8% 90.1% 92.6% . 160.45 160.51 160.92 160.69 161.66 162.78 162.1 160.88 162.16 154.16 154.88 153.73 153.8 159.33 90.1% 90.2% 90.4% 90.3% 90.8% 91.4% 91.1% 90.4% 91.1% 86.6% 87.0% 86.4% 86.4% 89.5% 162.47 162.51 163.18 164.8 164.61 164.48 165.51 165.54 165.62 163.04 163.25 164.95 164.5 163.9 91.3% 91.3% 91.7% 92.6% 92.5% 92.4% 93.0% 93.0% 93.0% 91.6% 91.7% 92.7% 92.4% 92.1% C c C c c c c c c c c c Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate C c 161.18 158.02 157.48 143.20 158.39 160.19 157.37 149.60 159.99 160.10 163.98 157.42 159.09 160.38 155.77 158.28 157.84 156.45 161.83 93.2% 91.3% 91.0% 82.8% 91.6% 92.6% 91.0% 86.5% 92.5% 92.5% 94.8% 91.0% 92.0% 92.7% 90.0% 91.5% 91.2% 90.4% 93.5% 161.50 159.57 155.62 149.42 156.83 159.19 154.76 150.67 164.19 159.01 163.34 156.92 161.93 160.86 154.43 156.58 161.51 158.87 164.68 93.4% 92.2% 90.0% 86.4% 90.7% 92.0% 89.5% 87.1% 94.9% 91.9% 94.4% 90.7% 93.6% 93.0% 89.3% 90.5% 93.4% 91.8% 95.2% 165.94 164.57 164.34 0 166.86 167.34 164.61 162.90 168.20 166.86 168.68 165.68 167.70 166.46 165.59 166.99 165.35 166.97 169.06 95.9% 95.1% 95.0% 0.0% 96.5% 96.7% 95.2% 94.2% 97.2% 96.5% 97.5% 95.8% 96.9% 96.2% 95.7% 96.5% 95.6% 96.5% 171.24 163.31 154.12 0 158.92 163.59 155.85 154.03 166.08 99.0% 94.4% 89.1% 0.0% 91.9% 94.6% 90.1% 89.0% 96.0% 97.7% 159.40 165.95 159.66 161.55 162.63 153.20 159.67 160.12 159.09 165.67 92.1% 95.9% 92.3% 93.4% 94.0% 88.6% 92.3% 92.6% 92.0% 95.8% 169.53 163.74 157.19 0 157.76 163.71 159.83 152.33 168.20 157.78 167.35 164.50 165.00 165.84 163.17 159.66 165.45 158.95 170.62 98.0% 94.6% 90.9% 0.0% 91.2% 94.6% 92.4% 88.1% 97.2% 91.2% 96.7% 95.1% 95.4% 95.9% 94.3% 92.3% 95.6% 91.9% 98.6% c c C c c c c c c c c c c c ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 33 of 33 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 School Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate LJ Rockefeller 165.06 Geyer Springs Pulaski Hts Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale 158.63 160.18 158.48 156.97 157.85 159.06 164.16 155.19 155.24 154.80 4 Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson LRSD-R Total 157.48 159.80 159.36 153.64 156.33 150.07 158.43 7^ 95.4% 91.7% 92.6% 91.6% 90.7% 91.2% 91.9% 94.9% 89.7% \\89.7% ' ^5% 92 92 88.8% 90.4% 86.7% 91.6% 165.78 159.74 161.12 155.11 161.79 154.19 159.25 163.85 155.17 157.12 157.16 155.59 159.21 159.26 154.97 155.82 146.72 158.66 95.8% 92.3% 93.1% 89.7% 93.5% 89.1% 92.1% 94.7% 89.7% 90.8% 90.8% 89.9% 92.0% 92.1% 89.6% 90.1% 84.8% 91.7% 166.17 166.09 166.45 165.61 164.57 164.62 165.95 167.82 165.82 165.45 165.67 166.66 167.10 166.38 164.82 165.59 0 166.23 96.1% 96.0% 96.2% 95.7% 95.1% 95.2% 95.9% 97.0% 95.8% 95.6% 95.8% 96.3% 96.6% 96.2% 95.3% 95.7% 0.0% 96.1% 160.40 158.79 165.30 158.63 158.95 159.30 163.16 165.34 158.38 160.03 160.62 161.88 164.00 158.77 152.43 157.08 0 160.99 92.7% 91.8% 95.5% 91.7% 91.9% 92.1% 94.3% 95.6% 91.5% 92.5% 92.8% 93.6% 94.8% 91.8% 88.1% 90.8% 0.0% 93.1% 164.93 160.12 166.20 164.94 164.16 156.39 162.86 168.70 166.01 156.97 159.65 161.33 165.91 165.06 160.50 158.23 0 163.26 95.3% 92.6% 96.1% 95.3% 94.9% 90.4% 94.1% 97.5% 96.0% 90.7% 92.3% 93.3% 95.9% 95.4% 92.8% 91.5% 0.0% 94.4% iddle lOl Mann 161.88 93.6% 164.26 94.9% 167.89 97.0% 164.6 95.1% 165.57 95.7% Dunbar 164.57 95.1% 165.24 95.5% 167.87 97.0% 165.54 95.7% 169.28 97.8% Forest Heights 160.91 93.0% 162.87 94.1% 165.75 95.8% 161.13 93.1% 168.36 97.3% Pulaski Hts 158.72 91.7% 159.20 92.0% 165.78 95.8% 160.08 92.5% 162.41 93.9% Southwest 152.95 88.4% 156.64 90.5% 162.17 93.7% 156.30 90.3% 159.21 92.0% Henderson 158.60 91.7% 160.14 92.6% 165.45 95.6% 162.83 94.1% 167.02 96.5% Cloverdale 155.93 90.1% 163.28 94.4% 168.09 97.2% 160.23 92.6% 168.01 97.1% Mabelvale 157.24 90.9% 159.51 92.2% 166.62 96.3% 163.15 94.3% 167.24 96.7% Garland 108.33 62.6% 118.87 68.7% 129.33 74.8% 114.27 66.1% 111.17 64.3% Total High Schools Central Hall 158.64 154.70 147.55 Metro Parkview Fair McClellan ACC All Schools Total ____0 163.52 156.34 156.42 93.65 152.76 91.7% 89.4% 85.3% 0.0% 94.5% 90.4% 90.4% 54.1% 88.3% 160.81 93.0% 165.70 95.8% 161.20 93.2% 163.60 94.6% 154.85 148.66 ____0 163.55 154.80 158.80 83.74 89.5% 85.9% 0.0% 94.5% 89.5% 91.8% 48.4% 162.90 157.26 52.71 167.95 162.27 164.12 114.19 94.2% 90.9% 30.5% 97.1% 93.8% 94.9% 66.0% 156.48 148.05 46.00 164.94 157.68 155.42 69.36 90.5% 85.6% 26.6% 95.3% 91.1% 89.8% 40.1% 168.29 160.59 0 172.41 168.81 162.14 107.46 97.3% 92.8% 0.0% 99.7% 97.6% 93.7% 62.1% 153.04 88.5% 161.19 93.2% 154.55 89.3% 165.37 95.6%Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 34 of 34 c c School  Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Elementary Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Total A-A White Hispanic Other A-A A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c c 163.96 158.32 155.75 143.63 161.18 158.74 160.95 147.14 105.00 158.02 159.75 150.26 155.14 148.11 157.48 145.31 120.92 47.00 143.20 158.20 158.45 160.05 157.69 158.39 161.53 160.03 109.00 159.03 160.19 159.17 155.79 128.36 157.37 150.70 145.89 159.50 149.60 162.54 158.63 157.50 92.1% 164.34 88.9% 87.5% 80.7% 90.6% 89.2% 90.4% 82.7% 59.0% ,88.8% 89.7% 84.4% 87.2% 83.2% 88.5% 81.6% 157.78 157.77 166.18 161.50 159.66 161.04 154.00 158.25 159.57 157.08 148.22 160.00 163.00 155.62 148.97 67.9% 26.4% 80.4% 88.9% 89.0% 89.9% 88.6% 89.0% 90.7% 89.9% 61.2% 89.3% 90.0% 89.4% 87.5% 72.1% 0.0% 88.4% 84.7% 82.0% 0.0% 89.6% 84.0% 91.3% 89.1% 88.5% 156.20 165.50 149.42 158.91 156.45 144.52 154.69 156.83 162.27 155.33 148.50 164.05 159.19 156.39 143.29 162.67 154.76 150.88 148.79 165.33 150.67 163.57 164.49 164.67 92.3% 88.6% 88.6% 93.4% 90.7% 89.7% 90.5% 86.5% 88.9% 89.6% 88.2% 83.3% 89.9% 91.6% 87.4% 83.7% 87.8% 93.0% 83.9% 89.3% 87.9% 81.2% 86.9% 88.1% 91.2% 87.3% 83.4% 92.2% 89.4% 87.9% 80.5% 91.4% 0.0% 86.9% 84.8% 83.6% 0.0% 92.9% 84.6% 91.9% 92.4% 92.5% 167.86 164.09 155.73 169.33 165.94 166.08 145.85 169.21 162.40 164.57 164.43 162.59 169.50 164.34 167.71 165.24 168.42 167.57 166.86 168.80 165.35 168.22 169.07 167.34 164.86 166.87 155.60 153.50 164.61 162.56 163.77 171.00 166.67 162.90 166.82 168.92 168.00 94.3% 92.2% 87.5% 95.1% 93.2% 93.3% 81.9% 95.1% 91.2% 92.5% 92.4% 91.3% 95.2% 0.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2% 92.8% 94.6% 94.1% 93.7% 94.8% 92.9% 94.5% 95.0% 94.0% 92.6% 93.7% 87.4% 86.2% 92.5% 91.3% 92.0% 96.1% 93.6% 91.5% 93.7% 94.9% 94.4% 172.95 169.53 164.95 169.67 171.24 163.71 160.94 170.86 103.75 163.31 155.90 140.05 164.31 125.67 154.12 158.55 161.92 146.77 168.11 158.92 165.10 162.69 164.44 149.56 163.59 155.34 154.43 164.78 158.33 155.85 155.21 148.55 168.00 170.25 154.03 162.84 168.15 164.50 97.2% 95.2% 92.7% 95.3% 96.2% 92.0% 90.4% 96.0% 58.3% 91.7% 87.6% 78.7% 92.3% 70.6% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.1% 91.0% 82.5% 94.4% 89.3% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 84.0% 91.9% 87.3% 86.8% 92.6% 88.9% 87.6% 87.2% 83.5% 94.4% 95.6% 86.5% 91.5% 172.09 166.81 168.79 157.00 169.53 165.15 147.75 167.36 145.33 163.74 159.25 142.83 163.97 170.75 157.19 157.70 155.76 164.28 158.47 157.76 167.03 161.41 129.73 170.59 163.71 159.00 96.7% 93.7% 94.8% 88.2% 95.2% 92.8% 83.0% 94.0% 81.6% c c. c C c c C 94.5% 92.4% 158.36 167.79 162.33 159.83 155.89 139.23 130.00 156.86 152.33 169.31 167.95 172.75 92.0% 89.5% 80.2% 92.1% 95.9% 88.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.6% 87.5% 92.3% 89.0% 88.6% 93.8% 90.7% 72.9% 95.8% 92.0% 89.3% 89.0% 94.3% 91.2% 89.8% 87.6% 78.2% 73.0% 88.1% 85.6% 95.1% 94.4% 97.1% C c c c c c c c c c C C c I I , I c c c c c c C*' c* c c c c I I I I I I I I I ILittle Rock School District Por^'olio Page 35 of 35 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate Other Total Franklin A-A White Hispanic Other Total 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 -J 'J Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 151.00 159.99 160.03 162.50 156.25 171.00 160.10 166.24 162.69 145.71 153.50 163.98 158.66 150.49 157.19 163.08 157.42 159.58 156.69 166.08 167.00 159.09 156.68 163.25 154.50 156.83 160.38 155.71 156.62 155.93 155.50 155.77 160.08 155.21 152.08 84.8% 89.9% 89.9% 91.3% 87.8% 96.1% 89.9% 93.4% 91.4% 81.9% 86.2% 92.1% ^94% 84.5% Total A-A White Hispanic Other 158.28 160.03 152.62 144.29 Total A-A White Hispanic 157.84 156.63 152.64 151.00 88.3% 91.6% 88.4% 89.7% 88.0% 93.3% 93.8% 89.4% 88.0% 91.7% 86.8% 88.1% 90.1% 87.5% 88.0% 87.6% 87.4% 87.5% 89.9% 87.2% 85.4% 0.0% 88.9% 89.9% 85.7% 81.1% 0.0% 88.7% 88.0% 85.8% 84.8% Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 166.43 164.19 158.84 163.60 161.25 169.00 159.01 164.02 162.37 165.56 163.40 163.34 158.47 152.04 153.30 162.40 156.92 162.12 162.38 155.59 164.50 161.93 157.87 163.14 156.67 169.40 160.86 154.60 158.23 150.70 162.33 154.43 156.03 156.59 163.72 155.00 156.58 162.20 158.80 158.50 171.25 161.51 158.72 166.63 149.00 93.5% 92.2% 89.2% 91.9% 90.6% 94.9% 89.3% 92.1% 91.2% 168.00 168.20 93.0% 91.8% 91.8% 89.0% 85.4% 86.1% 91.2% 88.2% 91.1% 91.2% 87.4% 92.4% 91.0% 88.7% 91.7% 88.0% 95.2% 90.4% 86.9% 88.9% 166.82 167.17 170.00 173.00 166.86 169.16 168.30 163.13 170.89 168.68 165.75 163.88 166.28 168.50 165.68 167.85 166.90 168.86 168.00 167.70 164.71 167.75 167.25 169.88 94.4% 94.5% 93.7% 93.9% 95.5% 97.2% 93.7% 95.0% 94.6% 91.6% 96.0% 94.8% 93.1% 92.1% 156.21 166.08 159.42 154.00 0.00 170.33 159.40 87.8% 93.3% 166.31 168.20 84.7% 91.2% 86.8% 87.7% 88.0% 92.0% 87.1% 88.0% 91.1% 89.2% 89.0% 96.2% 90.7% 89.2% 93.6% 83.7% 166.46 165.91 161.13 164.61 167.00 165.59 167.70 166.71 162.27 166.99 167.71 156.73 164.48 171.00 165.35 167.18 168.00 136.00 t 93.4% 94.7% 93.1% 94.3% 93.8% 94.9% 94.4% 94.2% 92.5% 94.2% 94.0% 95.4% 93.5% 93.2% 90.5% 92.5% 93.8% 93.0% 94.2% 93.7% 91.2% 0.0% 93.8% 94.2% 88.1% 92.4% 96.1% 92.9% 93.9% 94.4% 76.4% 167.60 163.28 167.38 171.42 165.95 160.67 153.48 158.65 169.00 159.66 162.26 157.63 165.75 146.00 161.55 161.40 163.38 167.00 169.75 162.63 152.70 144.13 157.53 158.50 153.20 161.53 154.23 166.40 159.67 160.61 153.48 165.12 172.50 160.12 159.27 144.50 173.00 89.6% 86.5% 0.0% 95.7% 89.6% 94.2% 91.7% 94.0% 96.3% 93.2% 90.3% 86.2% 89.1% 94.9% 89.7% 91.2% 88.6% 93.1% 82.0% 90.8% 90.7% 91.8% 93.8% 95.4% 91.4% 85.8% 81.0% 88.5% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 86.6% 93.5% 0.0% 89.7% 90.2% 86.2% 92.8% 96.9% 90.0% 89.5% 81.2% 97.2% 159.32 147.44 174.00 34.50 157.78 170.30 162.48 168.75 173.07 167.35 165.04 162.05 165.60 56.50 164.50 166.57 158.53 162.21 153.50 165.00 165.35 166.01 168.00 173.33 165.84 162.47 160.53 166.70 171.00 163.17 161.95 157.50 156.05 159.66 166.85 154.46 170.75 176.50 165.45 160.45 137.60 0.00 93.4% 94.5% 89.5% 82.8% 97.8% 19.4% 88.6% 95.7% 91.3% 94.8% 97.2% 94.0% 92.7% 91.0% 93.0% 31.7% 92.4% 93.6% 89.1% 91.1% 86.2% 92.7% 92.9% 93.3% 94.4% 97.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.2% 93.7% 96.1% 91.7% 91.0% 88.5% 87.7% 0.0% 89.7% 93.7% 86.8% 95.9% 99.2% 92.9% 90.1% 77.3% 0.0%Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 36 of 36 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate Other Total King A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rockefeller A-A White Hispanic Other Total 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Geyer Springs A-A White Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rightsell A-A White Total Romine A-A 0.00 156.45 162.18 161.89 167.90 153.14 161.83 165.30 164.38 167.50 171.50 165.06 0.0% 87.9% 91.1% 90.9% 94.3% 86.0% 90.9% 92.9% 92.3% 94.1% 96.3% 92.7% 159.91 \u0026lt;89.8% 152.17 143.11 158.63 158.22 163.15 145.00 160.18 158.45 163.00  White Hispanic Other Total Stephens A-A White Hispanic Other Total Washington A-A White Hispanic Other Total Williams A-A W hite Hispanic Other Total c c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c, 158.48 163.42 141.02 148.97 155.57 156.97 158.17 155.67 151.17 152.00 157.85 159.90 156.37 160.47 162.50 159.06 164.64 164.29 76.00 162.04 164.16 0.00 158.87 166.01 162.81 169.79 165.05 164.68 165.23 166.39 167.80 169.57 165.78 160.21 85.5% 80.4% 0.0% 89.1% 88.9% 91.7% 0.0% 81.5% 90.0% 89.0% 91.6% 89.0% 91.8% 79.2% 83.7% 87.4% 88.2% 88.9% 87.5% 84.9% 85.4% 88.7% 89.8% 87.8% 90.2% 91.3% 89.4% 92.5% 92.3% 42.7% 91.0% 92.2% 155.75 161.79 120.00 159.74 158.89 163.01 166.50 168.00 161.12 155.13 152.50 155.11 164.18 154.02 159.69 163.75 161.79 154.10 146.56 164.50 154.00 154.19 162.56 153.95 155.69 159.86 159.25 166.78 161.04 163.00 158.55 163.85 0.0% 89.3% 93.3% 91.5% 95.4% 92.7% 92.5% 92.8% 93.5% 94.3% 95.3% 93.1% 90.0% 87.5% 90.9% 67.4% 89.7% 89.3% 91.6% 93.5% 94.4% 90.5% 87.2% 85.7% 87.1% 92.2% 86.5% 89.7% 92.0% 90.9% 86.6% 82.3% 92.4% 86.5% 86.6% 91.3% 86.5% 87.5% 89.8% 89.5% 93.7% 90.5% 91.6% 89.1% 92.1% 0.00 166.97 169.71 168.11 170.50 170.44 169.06 167.22 166.56 136.37 169.50 166.17 166.50 164.61 161.53 0.00 166.09 166.64 166.08 171.00 168.78 166.45 165.61 0.00 165.61 167.93 162.17 156.90 148.14 164.57 164.72 162.75 163.25 162.00 164.62 167.66 165.30 158.66 164.04 165.95 169.56 166.14 165.50 165.50 167.82 0.0% 93.8% 95.3% 94.4% 95.8% 95.8% 95.0% 93.9% 93.6% 76.6% 95.2% 93.4% 93.5% 92.5% 90.7% 0.0% 93.3% 93.6% 93.3% 96.1% 94.8% 93.5% 93.0% 0.0% 93.0% 94.3% 91.1% 88.1% 83.2% 92.5% 92.5% 0.00 159.09 165.94 165.62 146.25 165.88 165.67 159.26 161.97 168.75 156.00 160.40 158.61 164.55 153.14 0.00 158.79 162.66 168.12 173.50 163.55 165.30 158.61 165.00 158.63 164.43 145.73 154.65 129.25 91.4% 91.7% 91.0% 92.5% 94.2% 92.9% 89.1% 92.2% 93.2% 95.3% 93.3% 93.0% 93.0% 94.3% 158.95 159.59 159.64 148.94 164.33 159.30 165.50 159.86 159.75 155.68 163.16 165.05 165.91 168.00 164.31 165.34 0.0% 89.4% 93.2% 93.0% 82.2% 93.2% 93.1% 89.5% 91.0% 94.8% 87.6% 90.1% 89.1% 92.4% 86.0% 0.0% 89.2% 91.4% 94.4% 97.5% 91.9% 92.9% 89.1% 92.7% 89.1% 92.4% 81.9% 86.9% 72.6% 89.3% 89.7% 89.7% 83.7% 92.3% 89.5% 93.0% 89.8% 89.7% 87.5% 91.7% 92.7% 93.2% 94.4% 92.3% 92.9% 42.00 158.95 169.86 172.43 153.14 171.12 170.62 163.11 169.11 164.13 171.42 164.93 161.33 144.10 156.60 0.00 160.12 167.30 165.59 172.50 156.63 166.20 164.94 0.00 164.94 165.42 157.11 161.13 170.67 164.16 156.79 152.60 142.20 168.00 156.39 162.43 163.59 165.39 164.00 162.86 169.96 167.06 169.63 168.02 168.70 23.6% 89.3% 95.4% 96.9% 86.0% 96.1% 95.9% 91.6% 95.0% 92.2% 96.3% 92.7% 90.6% 81.0% 88.0% 0.0% 90.0% 94.0% 93.0% 96.9% 88.0% 93.4% 92.7% 0.0% 92.7% 92.9% 88.3% 90.5% 95.9% 92.2% 88.1% 85.7% 79.9% 94.4% 87.9% 91.3% 91.9% 92.9% 92.1% 91.5% 95.5% 93.9% 95.3% 94.4% 94.8% c c* C- c. c c\nc. c\nq: c\nc: c: c: c: c: c: c c c c: c: q: c: c: c: C' cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 37 of 37  Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate I Wilson A-A White Hispanic Other Total Woodruff A-A White  Hispanic Other Total Mabelvale A-A White Hispanic Other Total Terry A-A White Hispanic Other Total Fulbright A-A White Hispanic Other Total Otter Creek A-A White Hispanic Other Total Wakefield A-A White Hispanic Other Total Watson A-A White Watson Hispanic Other Total LRSD-R A-A White Total Total A-A Elementary While 155.48 148.63 169.00 164.67 155.19 155.59 153.44 144.00 155.50 155.24 155.13 154.40 162.00 \u0026lt;91.0% 121.50 154.80 158.67 155.80 154.48 163.37 157.48 157.49 161.28 166.00 162.88 159.80 159.44 160.38 161.06 131.57 159.36 153.43 148.52 160.07 109.75 153.64 156.63 140.82 159.63 172.00 156.33 149.59 152.85 150.07 158.67 158.52 87.3% 83.5% 94.9% 92.5% 87.2% 87.4% 86.2% 80.9% 87.4% 87.2% 87.2% 86.7% 68.3% 87.0% 89.1% 87.5% 86.8% 91.8% 88.5% 88.5% 90.6% 93.3% 91.5% 89.8% 89.6% 90.1% 90.5% 73.9% 89.5% 86.2% 83.4% 89.9% 61.7% 86.3% 88.0% 79.1% 89.7% 96.6% 87.8% 84.0% 85.9% 84.3% 89.1% 89.1% 154.75 162.91 172.25 143.80 155.17 157.63 160.31 117.00 109.50 157.12 159.02 152.20 153.78 157.16 161.59 154.80 138.32 136.94 155.59 157.05 161.00 138.00 151.00 159.21 160.36 157.52 157.75 166.38 159.26 156.44 130.21 154.57 0.00 154.97 157.03 118.29 161.40 110.00 155.82 149.74 114.71 146.72 158.99 158.54 86.9% 91.5% 96.8% 80.8% 87.2% 88.6% 90.1% 65.7% 61.5% 88.3% 89.3% 85.5% 86.4% 0.0% 88.3% 90.8% 87.0% 77.7% 76.9% 87.4% 88.2% 90.4% 77.5% 84.8% 89.4% 90.1% 88.5% 88.6% 93.5% 89.5% 87.9% 73.2% 86.8% 0.0% 87.1% 88.2% 66.5% 90.7% 61.8% 87.5% 84.1% 64.4% 82.4% 89.3% 89.1% 165.61 168.00 166.33 171.25 165.82 165.68 163.35 0.00 166.50 165.45 166.06 163.52 168.86 172.00 165.67 167.53 165.62 167.16 164.65 166.66 166.27 167.52 169.75 169.10 167.10 166.87 166.14 159.33 164.38 166.38 164.73 168.00 165.00 164.00 164.82 165.86 157.08 164.79 0.00 165.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.55 165.86 93.0% 94.4% 93.4% 96.2% 93.2% 93.1% 91.8% 0.0% 93.5% 92.9% 93.3% 91.9% 94.9% 96.6% 93.1% 94.1% 93.0% 93.9% 92.5% 93.6% 93.4% 94.1% 95.4% 95.0% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 89.5% 92.3% 93.5% 92.5% 94.4% 92.7% 92.1% 92.6% 93.2% 88.2% 92.6% 0.0% 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.6% 93.2% 157.66 163.59 166.45 161.00 158.38 161.51 146.24 0.00 166.00 160.03 161.79 153.23 167.44 164.83 160.62 162.66 160.27 161.58 164.32 161.88 164.91 163.80 155.67 161.42 164.00 158.13 160.62 151.78 162.50 158.77 150.32 167.14 162.60 0.00 152.43 157.12 152.18 158.57 172.00 157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.61 162.21 88.6% 91.9% 93.5% 90.4% 89.0% 90.7% 82.2% 0.0% 93.3% 89.9% 90.9% 86.1% 94.1% 92.6% 90.2% 91.4% 90.0% 90.8% 92.3% 90.9% 92.6% 92.0% 87.5% 90.7% 92.1% 88.8% 90.2% 85.3% 91.3% 89.2% 84.4% 93.9% 91.3% 0.0% 85.6% 88.3% 85.5% 89.1% 96.6% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.2% 91.1% 165.75 165.77 168.75 175.25 166.01 158.63 142.25 159.00 64.00 156.97 162.49 150.53 151.46 111.33 159.65 163.90 161.20 154.51 150.00 161.33 166.63 166.21 168.33 151.29 165.91 165.86 163.57 169.67 149.89 165.06 160.74 163.29 159.11 0.00 160.50 159.06 135.00 163.20 25.00 158.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.45 163.42 93.1% 93.1% 94.8% 98.5% 93.3% 89.1% 79.9% 89.3% 36.0% 88.2% 91.3% 84.6% 85.1% 62.5% 89.7% 92.1% 90.6% 86.8% 84.3% 90.6% 93.6% 93.4% 94.6% 85.0% 93.2% 93.2% 91.9% 95.3% 84.2% 92.7% 90.3% 91.7% 89.4% 0.0% 90.2% 89.4% 75.8% 91.7% 14.0% 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.8% 91.8%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Page 38 of 38 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Hispanic Other Total 154.30 155.83 158.43 Middle School Mann A-A White Hispanic Other Total Dunbar A-A White Hispanic Other Total Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cloverdale Cloverdale Mabelvale Garland A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A W'hite Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A 2000-01 Percent Rate 86.7% 87.5% 89.0% 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 163.92 159.38 165.81 159.17 161.88 164.51 164.26 162.60 c c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 154.88 156.38 158.66 87.0% 87.9% 89.1% 163.22 166.48 166.23 91.7% 93.5% 93.4% 159.94 161.13 160.99 89.9% 90.5% 90.4% 162.49 157.81 163.26 91.3% 88.7% 91.7% c c C 92.1% 89.5% 93.2% 89.4% 90.9% 92.4% 92.3% 91.3% 169.76 ^5^ 164.57 161.25 160.85 146.88 162.50 160.91 155.62 162.67 155.33 167.50 158.72 155.07 138.22 102.77 0.00 152.95 159.61 152.98 163.00 165.56 158.60 157.61 138.15 151.27 169.13 155.93 157.95 155.45 143.58 165.90 157.24 109.93 92.5% 90.6% 90.4% 82.5% 91.3% 90.4% 87.4% 91.4% 87.3% 94.1% 89.2% 87.1% 77.7% 57.7% 0.0% 85.9% 89.7% 85.9% 91.6% 93.0% 89.1% 88.5% 77.6% 85.0% 95.0% 87.6% 88.7% 87.3% 80.7% 93.2% 88.3% 61.8% 164.94 163.23 167.79 165.14 164.26 166.30 164.28 155.77 166.35 165.24 162.72 164.43 160.71 127.13 162.87 156.19 163.39 143.00 154.89 159.20 156.91 155.10 144.28 0.00 156.64 163.02 149.27 162.00 115.38 160.14 163.30 163.22 162.60 170.67 163.28 161.72 150.36 148.83 167.92 159.51 120.10 92.7% 91.7% 94.3% 92.8% 92.3% 93.4% 92.3% 87.5% 93.5% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 90.3% 71.4% 91.5% 87.7% 91.8% 80.3% 87.0% 89.4% 88.2% 87.1% 81.1% 0.0% 88.0% 91.6% 83.9% 91.0% 64.8% 90.0% 91.7% 91.7% 91.3% 95.9% 91.7% 90.9% 84.5% 83.6% 94.3% 89.6% 67.5% 167.92 167.53 170.18 170.80 167.89 168.89 166.37 164.52 168.24 167.87 166.08 165.16 171.92 136.50 165.75 164.80 166.97 170.42 171.20 165.78 162.96 142.80 158.88 169.25 162.17 167.08 161.16 155.42 168.21 165.45 168.83 157.49 166.79 171.83 168.09 167.35 163.65 168.42 171.90 166.62 130.16 94.3% 94.1% 95.6% 96.0% 94.3% 94.9% 93.5% 92.4% 94.5% 94.3% 93.3% 92.8% 96.6% 76.7% 93.1% 92.6% 93.8% 95.7% 96.2% 93.1% 91.6% 80.2% 89.3% 95.1% 91.1% 93.9% 90.5% 87.3% 94.5% 92.9% 94.8% 88.5% 93.7% 96.5% 94.4% 94.0% 91.9% 94.6% 96.6% 93.6% 73.1% 165.58 163.74 156.33 166.02 164.60 167.70 162.77 164.61 158.91 165.54 162.64 155.81 166.65 167.67 161.13 157.17 164.21 167.67 170.71 160.08 156.74 139.41 149.38 167.25 156.30 163.28 157.10 166.51 161.71 162.83 161.62 138.82 158.08 175.00 160.23 165.66 157.09 149.11 135.17 163.15 114.98 93.0% 92.0% 87.8% 93.3% 92.5% 94.2% 91.4% 92.5% 89.3% 93.0% 91.4% 87.5% 93.6% 94.2% 90.5% 88.3% 92.3% 94.2% 95.9% 89.9% 88.1% 78.3% 83.9% 94.0% 87.8% 91.7% 88.3% 93.5% 90.8% 91.5% 90.8% 78.0% 88.8% 98.3% 90.0% 93.1% 88.3% 83.8% 75.9% 91.7% 64.6% 167.07 163.99 162.97 165.89 165.57 170.64 167.66 165.70 165.56 169.28 168.12 168.45 173.10 174.43 168.36 160.46 165.12 167.50 157.08 162.41 159.16 159.80 157.45 174.25 159.21 168.18 160.43 160.48 177.19 167.02 168.53 161.90 166.20 177.83 168.01 169.14 159.41 156.44 167.24 111.15 93.9% 92.1% 91.6% 93.2% 93.0% 95.9% 94.2% 93.1% 93.0% 95.1% 94.4% 94.6% 97.2% 98.0% 94.6% 90.1% 92.8% 94.1% 88.2% 91.2% 89.4% 89.8% 88.5% 97.9% 89.4% 94.5% 90.1% 90.2% 99.5% 93.8% 94.7% 91.0% 93.4% 99.9% 94.4% 95.0% 89.6% 87.9% 0.0% 94.0% 62.4% c c c c C C c c. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c       Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 39 of 39 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate White Hispanic Other Total Total Middle A-A School White Hispanic Other 59.50 0.00 0.00 108.33 158.57 159.13 151.39 33.4% 0.0% Total 165.36 158.64 0.0% 60.9% 89.1% 89.4% 85.1% 92.9% 89.1% 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 o o Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 1 110.77 72.50 0.00 118.87 160.87 161.11 157.99 158.30 160.81 62.2% 40.7% 0.0% 66.8% 90.4% 90.5% 88.8% 88.9% 90.3% 89.00 128.75 0.00 129.33 165.90 165.21 163.76 168.27 165.70 50.0% 72.3% 0.0% 72.7% 93.2% 92.8% 92.0% 94.5% 93.1% 106.56 0.00 0.00 114.27 161.49 160.36 160.29 162.68 161.20 59.9% 0.0% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.1% 90.1% 91.4% 90.6% 107.97 134.00 151.00 111.17 163.39 163.96 164.03 167.36 163.60 60.7% 75.3% 84.8% 62.5% 91.8% 92.1% 92.2% 94.0% 91.9% I t. High Scy^l Central Hall Metro Parkview Fair McClellan McClellan ACC Total High School A-A White 152.55 157.36 85.7% 88.4% Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic 131.81 \u0026lt;74.1% 166.40 154.70 147.87 150.48 131.38 157.85 147.55 0.00 0.00 165.18 161.53 158.43 167.71 163.52 156.04 157.78 150.65 171.17 156.34 157.03 149.28 156.00 162.75 156.42 92.77 94.85 108.13 144.00 93.65 151.95 155.21 138.12 152.51 157.48 93.5% 86.9% 83.1% 84.5% 73.8% 88.7% 82.9% 0.0% 0.0% 92.8% 90.7% 89.0% 94.2% 91.9% 87.7% 88.6% 84.6% 96.2% 87.8% 88.2% 83.9% 87.6% 91.4% 87.9% 52.1% 53.3% 60.7% 80.9% 52.6% 85.4% 87.2% 77.6% 157.77 163.84 154.85 149.87 144.33 147.51 162.25 148.66 0.00 0.00 165.42 161.19 163.83 168.92 163.55 155.05 153.51 151.95 168.67 154.80 159.19 154.69 154.31 0.00 158.80 84.27 86.53 53.00 16.00 83.74 152.60 153.95 148.63 85.7% 88.5% 88.6% 92.0% 87.0% 84.2% 81.1% 82.9% 91.2% 83.5% 0.0% 0.0% 92.9% 90.6% 92.0% 94.9% 91.9% 87.1% 86.2% 85.4% 94.8% 87.0% 89.4% 86.9% 86.7% 0.0% 89.2% 47.3% 48.6% 29.8% 9.0% 47.0% 85.7% 86.5% 83.5% 161.76 164.00 162.70 170.98 162.90 158.91 153.77 148.48 166.71 157.26 52.71 52.71 169.92 166.25 158.48 169.33 167.95 164.33 153.12 163.47 170.08 162.27 164.31 159.32 168.94 172.00 164.12 117.34 103.60 73.67 0.00 114.19 161.46 160.86 153.40 90.9% 92.1% 91.4% 96.1% 91.5% 89.3% 86.4% 83.4% 93.7% 88.3% 29.6% 29.6% 95.5% 93.4% 89.0% 95.1% 94.4% 92.3% 86.0% 91.8% 95.6% 91.2% 92.3% 89.5% 94.9% 96.6% 92.2% 65.9% 58.2% 41.4% 0.0% 154.42 158.42 161.86 164.41 156.48 148.30 147.21 146.53 152.52 148.05 46.00 46.00 166.63 162.48 165.01 169.76 164.94 158.38 153.22 161.39 163.38 157.68 155.81 152-51 143.25 167.50 155.42 67.85 86.8% 89.0% 90.9% 92.4% 87.9% 83.3% 82.7% 82.3% 85.7% 83.2% 25.8% 25.8% 93.6% 91.3% 92.7% 95.4% 92.7% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 91.8% 88.6% 87.5% 85.7% 80.5% 94.1% 87.3% 38.1% 167.31 169.14 165.97 173.36 168.29 162.04 152.99 161.10 149.44 160.59 0.00 0.00 173.58 171.20 167.52 175.19 172.41 169.59 164.86 165.52 156.28 168.81 162.49 155.87 162.26 172.25 162.14 107.17 94.0% 95.0% 93.2% 97.4% 94.5% 91.0% 85.9% 90.5% 84.0% 90.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.5% 96.2% 94.1% 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 92.6% 93.0% 87.8% 94.8% 91.3% 87.6% 91.2% 96.8% 91.1% 60.2% 64.2% 90.7% 90.4% 86.2% 81.50 129.00 0.00 69.36 153.37 157.03 152.69 45.8% 72.5% 0.0% 39.0% 86.2% 88.2% 85.8% 102.50 119.50 144.50 107.46 164.94 166.72 162.51 57.6% 67.1% 81.2% 60.4% 92.7% 93.7% 91.3%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Grad^, K 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 Page 40 of 40 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present 2000-01 Percent Rate 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2004-05 2004-05 Other Total St] ^ace A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total c c c c c Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 164.79 152.76 92.6% 85.8% 164.01 153.04 92.1% 86.0% 169.59 161.19 95.3% 90.6% 163.85 154.55 92.1% 86.8% 168.05 165.37 94.4% 92.9% c c c c Little Rock School District c ttendance (Days Present) Averages by Grade Level and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2004-05 2000-01 Days 155.82 Percent 87.5% 157.19 \\88.3% 151.93 . 157.04 156.05 158.09 158.13 151.63 153.44 157.78 159.61 158.14 153.19 157.85 158.98 159.45 160.22 157.32 154.64 159.53 159.21 160.63 156.89 151.50 159.42 160.61 159.77 161.05 164.84 160.47 159.70 158.50 152.98 165.78 159.30 ff.2% 87.7% 88.8% 88.8% 85.2% 86.2% 88.6% 89.7% 88.8% 86.1% 88.7% 89.3% 89.6% 90.0% 88.4% 86.9% 89.6% 89.4% 90.2% 88.1% 85.1% 89.6% 90.2% 89.8% 90.5% 92.6% 90.2% 89.7% 89.0% 85.9% 93.1% 89.5% 2001-02 Days 158.06 157.78 156.87 153.68 157.85 158.62 156.34 154.33 154.46 157.78 159.58 160.01 156.76 158.45 159.55 159.04 158.89 152.99 161.00 158.80 159.65 159.22 154.62 152.04 159.24 160.02 158.47 155.44 163.71 159.48 162.79 161.88 160.99 159.83 162.47 Percent 88.8% 88.6% 88.1% 86.3% 88.7% 89.1% 87.8% 86.7% 86.8% 88.6% 89.7% 89.9% 88.1% 89.0% 89.6% 89.3% 89.3% 85.9% 90.4% 89.2% 89.7% 89.4% 86.9% 85.4% 89.5% 89.9% 89.0% 87.3% 92.0% 89.6% 91.5% 90.9% 90.4% 89.8% 91.3% 2002-03 Days 165.63 165.10 164.26 163.89 165.38 166.00 166.19 165.45 167.56 166.06 167.00 165.62 164.44 168.81 166.57 167.18 164.94 164.48 167.72 166.50 166.87 166.37 159.17 166.89 166.45 167.52 166.71 161.81 171.00 167.14 167.00 165.98 165.27 168.53 166.72 Percent 93.1% 92.8% 92.3% 92.1% 92.9% 93.3% 93.4% 92.9% 94.1% 93.3% 93.8% 93.0% 92.4% 94.8% 93.6% 93.9% 92.7% 92.4% 94.2% 93.5% 93.7% 93.5% 89.4% 93.8% 93.5% 94.1% 93.7% 90.9% 96.1% 93.9% 93.8% 93.2% 92.8% 94.7% 93.7% 2003-04 Days 160.05 161.51 159.18 163.18 160.45 160.37 161.68 160.52 153.49 160.51 159.97 163.41 160.40 161.90 160.92 160.00 162.71 159.33 162.51 160.69 161.61 161.45 161.75 165.47 161.66 162.80 163.38 160.28 157.83 162.78 163.22 159.54 157.04 164.94 162.10 Percent 89.9% 90.7% 89.4% 91.7% 90.1% 90.1% 90.8% 90.2% 86.2% 90.2% 89.9% 91.8% 90.1% 91.0% 90.4% 89.9% 91.4% 89.5% 91.3% 90.3% 90.8% 90.7% 90.9% 93.0% 90.8% 91.5% 91.8% 90.0% 88.7% 91.4% 91.7% 89.6% 88.2% 92.7% 91.1% 2004-05 Days 162.28 163.75 162.16 153.63 162.47 163.00 162.86 159.21 154.05 162.51 164.31 161.74 162.64 145.16 163.18 164.87 164.96 160.62 170.91 164.80 165.06 164.22 162.82 160.10 164.61 164.79 162.86 166.95 166.84 164.48 165.85 164.78 163.92 165.62 165.51 Percent 91.2% 92.0% 91.1% 86.3% 91.3% 91.6% 91.5% 89.4% 86.5% 91.3% 92.3% 90.9% 91.4% 81.6% 91.7% 92.6% 92.7% 90.2% 96.0% 92.6% 92.7% 92.3% 91.5% 89.9% 92.5% 92.6% 91.5% 93.8% 93.7% 92.4% 93.2% 92.6% 92.1% 93.0% 93.0% C c: c c: c. c c c: c c c r c c c c c: c: c c: C' c* c c: c ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 41 of 41 Grade 7 Little Rock School District Student Attendance (Days Present) Averages by Grade Level and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2004-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Race A-A White Hispanic Other Total  8 9 10 11 12 A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total School Elementary Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline Days 158.42 158.91 148.81 166.17 158.49 159.38 160.37 151.55 163.48 159.48 150.23 155.73 145.25 165.32 151.72 150.15 156.25 131.71 168.60 151.65 152.24 156.10 132.90 160.60 153.13 154.32 152.33 141.22 164.98 153.60 Percent 89.0% 89.3% 83.6% 93.4% 89.0% 89.5% 90.1% 85.1% 91.8% 89.6% 84.4% % %% 92.9% 85.2% 84.4% 87.8% 74.0% 94.7% 85.2% 85.5% 87.7% 74.7% 90.2% 86.0% 86.7% 85.6% 79.3% 92.7% 86.3% Days 161.26 160.71 161.37 160.87 161.12 161.12 161.32 149.75 157.84 160.87 151.66 155.75 151.32 165.62 152.89 151.80 154.97 152.00 167.72 152.90 151.78 151.42 140.13 163.97 151.60 152.74 152.79 143.08 156.71 152.60 Percent 90.6% 90.3% 90.7% 90.4% 90.5% 90.5% 90.6% 84.1% 88.7% 90.4% 85.2% 87.5% 85.0% 93.0% 85.9% 85.3% 87.1% 85.4% 94.2% 85.9% 85.3% 85.1% 78.7% 92.1% 85.2% 85.8% 85.8% 80.4% 88.0% 85.7% Days 166.53 165.08 163.63 169.15 166.13 166.20 164.90 161.36 166.98 165.75 160.31 160.24 156.23 170.16 160.36 161.04 161.21 154.11 168.67 160.94 162.15 161.50 146.16 169.78 161.67 160.30 160.21 156.66 169.25 160.32 Percent 93.6% 92.7% 91.9% 95.0% 93.3% 93.4% 92.6% 90.7% 93.8% 93.1% 90.1% 90.0% 87.8% 95.6% 90.1% 90.5% 90.6% 86.6% 94.8% 90.4% 91.1% 90.7% 82.1% 95.4% 90.8% 90.1% 90.0% 88.0% 95.1% 90.1% Days 161.47 159.45 159.16 159.82 160.88 161.79 162.62 165.49 164.13 162.16 152.24 159.05 157.00 163.01 154.16 154.19 156.07 151.54 166.75 154.88 152.70 155.62 152.36 162.00 153.73 152.46 156.70 148.67 162.91 153.80 Percent 90.7% 89.6% 89.4% 89.8% 90.4% 90.9% 91.4% 93.0% 92.2% 91.1% 85.5% 89.4% 88.2% 91.6% 86.6% 86.6% 87.7% 85.1% 93.7% 87.0% 85.8% 87.4% 85.6% 91.0% 86.4% 85.7% 88.0% 83.5% 91.5% 86.4% I Days 166.30 162.69 165.72 170.20 165.54 165.54 166.38 162.88 166.71 165.62 162.11 165.56 163.60 166.51 163.04 162.39 165.54 160.79 170.59 163.25 164.06 166.96 159.35 172.10 164.95 163.32 167.18 165.90 160.25 164.50 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate Percent 93.4% 91.4% 93.1% 95.6% 93.0% 93.0% 93.5% 91.5% 93.7% 93.0% 91.1% 93.0% 91.9% 93.5% 91.6% 91.2% 93.0% 90.3% 95.8% 91.7% 92.2% 93.8% 89.5% 96.7% 92.7% 91.8% 93.9% 93.2% 90.0% 92.4% 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate 161.18 93.2% 161.50 1 I 158.02 157.48 143.20 158.39 160.19 157.37 91.3% 91.0% 82.8% 91.6% 92.6% 91.0% 159.57 155.62 149.42 156.83 159.19 154.76 93.4% 92.2% 90.0% 86.4% 90.7% 92.0% 89.5% 165.94 164.57 164.34 0 95.9% 95.1% 95.0% 0.0% 171.24 163.31 154.12 166.86 167.34 164.61 96.5% 96.7% 95.2% 0 158.92 163.59 155.85 99.0% 94.4% 89.1% 0.0% 91.9% 94.6% 90.1% 169.53 163.74 157.19 0 157.76 163.71 159.83 98.0% 94.6% 90.9% 0.0% 91.2% 94.6% 92.4%4. Little Rock School District Portfolio School Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cioverdaie Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell JSms______ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Romine Stephens Washington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabcivaie Terrv Fulbright Otter Creek Page 42 of 42 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 Days Present 149.60 159.99 160.10 163.98 157.42 159.09 160.38 155.77 158.28 157.84 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05  Wakefield Watson LRSD-R Total Elementary Middle School Mann Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cioverdaie Mabelvale Garland Total Middle High School c c c Percent Rate 86.5% 92.5% 92.5% 94.8% 91.0% 92.0% 92.7% 90.0% 91.5% \\91.2% 156.45 ^.4% 161.83 165.06 158.63 160.18 158.48 156.97 157.85 159.06 164.16 155.19 155.24 154.80 157.48 159.80 159.36 153.64 156.33 150.07 158.43 161.88 164.57 160.91 158.72 152.95 158.60 155.93 157.24 108.33 158.64 95 91 92.6% 91.6% 90.7% 91.2% 91.9% 94.9% 89.7% 89.7% 89.5% 91.0% 92.4% 92.1% 88.8% 90.4% 86.7% 91.6% 93.6% 95.1% 93.0% 91.7% 88.4% 91.7% 90.1% 90.9% 62.6% 91.7% Days Present 150.67 164.19 159.01 163.34 156.92 161.93 160.86 154.43 156.58 161.51 158.87 164.68 165.78 159.74 161.12 155.11 161.79 154.19 159.25 163.85 155.17 157.12 157.16 155.59 159.21 159.26 154.97 155.82 146.72 158.66 164.26 165.24 162.87 159.20 156.64 160.14 163.28 159.51 118.87 160.81 Percent Rate 87.1% 94.9% 91.9% 94.4% 90.7% 93.6% 93.0% 89.3% 90.5% 93.4% 91.8% 95.2% 95.8% 92.3% 93.1% 89.7% 93.5% 89.1% 92.1% 94.7% 89.7% 90.8% 90.8% 89.9% 92.0% 92.1% 89.6% 90.1% 84.8% 91.7% 94.9% 95.5% 94.1% 92.0% 90.5% 92.6% 94.4% 92.2% 68.7% 93.0% Days Present 162.90 168.20 166.86 168.68 165.68 167.70 166.46 165.59 166.99 165.35 166.97 169.06 166.17 166.09 166.45 165.61 164.57 164.62 165.95 167.82 165.82 165.45 165.67 166.66 167.10 166.38 164.82 165.59 0 166.23 167.89 167.87 165.75 165.78 162.17 165.45 168.09 166.62 129.33 165.70 Percent Rate 94.2% 97.2% 96.5% 97.5% 95.8% 96.9% 96.2% 95.7% 96.5% 95.6% 96.5% 97.7% 96.1% 96.0% 96.2% 95.7% 95.1% 95.2% 95.9% 97.0% 95.8% 95.6% 95.8% 96.3% 96.6% 96.2% 95.3% 95.7% 0.0% 96.1% 97.0% 97.0% 95.8% 95.8% 93.7% 95.6% 97.2% 96.3% 74.8% 95.8% Days Present 154.03 166.08 159.40 165.95 159.66 161.55 162.63 153.20 159.67 160.12 159.09 165.67 160.40 158.79 165.30 158.63 158.95 159.30 163.16 165.34 158.38 160.03 160.62 161.88 164.00 158.77 152.43 157.08 0 160.99 164.60 165.54 161.13 160.08 156.30 162.83 160.23 163.15 114.27 161.20 Percent Rate 89.0% 96.0% 92.1% 95.9% 92.3% 93.4% 94.0% 88.6% 92.3% 92.6% 92.0% 95.8% 92.7% 91.8% 95.5% 91.7% 91.9% 92.1% 94.3% 95.6% 91.5% 92.5% 92.8% 93.6% 94.8% 91.8% 88.1% 90.8% 0.0% 93.1% 95.1% 95.7% 93.1% 92.5% 90.3% 94.1% 92.6% 94.3% 66.1% 93.2% Days Present 152.33 168.20 157.78 167.35 164.50 165.00 165.84 163.17 159.66 165.45 158.95 170.62 164.93 160.12 166.20 164.94 164.16 156.39 162.86 168.70 166.01 156.97 159.65 161.33 165.91 165.06 160.50 158.23 0 163.26 165.57 169.28 168.36 162.41 159.21 167.02 168.01 167.24 111.17 163.60 Percent Rate 88.1% 97.2% 91.2% 96.7% 95.1% 95.4% 95.9% 94.3% 92.3% 95.6% 91.9% 98.6% 95.3% 92.6% 96.1% 95.3% 94.9% 90.4% 94.1% 97.5% 96.0% 90.7% 92.3% 93.3% 95.9% 95.4% 92.8% 91.5% 0.0% 94.4% 95.7% 97.8% 97.3% 93.9% 92.0% 96.5% 97.1% 96.1% 64.3% 94.6% C c c c c c c c C c c c c c r r r c r c C C c c? C c: c* C' c* ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 43 of 43 Little Rock School District Average Student Attendance Rates by School 2000-01 to 2005-06 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 School Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Centra] Hall Metro Parkview Fair McClellan ACC Total High School 5^ 154.70 147.55 0 163.52 156.34 156.42 93.65 152.76 .ittle Rock lool ithnicity Elemental^^^ Booker A-A White \u0026lt; Hispanic Other Total Bale A-A White Hispanic Other Total Brady A-A White Hispanic Other Total Badgett Badgett A-A White Hispanic Total McDermott A-A White Hispanic Other A-A Carver A-A While Hispanic Other 89.4% 85.3% 0.0% 94.5% 90.4% 90.4% 54.1% 88.3% 154.85 148.66 0 163.55 154.80 158.80 83.74 153.04 89.5% 85.9% 0.0% 94.5% 89.5% 91.8% 48.4% 88.5% 162.9 157.26 52.71 167.95 162.27 164.12 114.19 161.19 94.2% 90.9% 30.5% 97.1% 93.8% 94.9% 66.0% 93.2% 156.48 148.05 46.00 164.94 157.68 155.42 69.36 154.55 90.5% 85.6% 26.6% 95.3% 91.1% 89.8% 40.1% 89.3% 168.29 160.59 0 172.41 168.81 162.14 107.46 165.37 lol District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 1-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate 97.3% 92.8% 0.0% 99.7% 97.6% 93.7% 62.1% 95.6% 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate 163.96 158.32 155.75 143.63 161.18 158.74 160.95 147.14 105.00 158.02 159.75 150.26 155.14 148.11 157.48 92.1% 88.9% 87.5% 80.7% 90.6% 89.2% 90.4% 82.7% 59.0% 88.8% 89.7% 84.4% 87.2% 83.2% 88.5% 164.34 157.78 157.77 166.18 161.50 159.66 161.04 154.00 158.25 159.57 157.08 148.22 160.00 163.00 155.62 145.31 120.92 47.00 143.20 158.20 158.45 160.05 157.69 158.39 161.53 160.03 109.00 159.03 81.6% 67.9% 26.4% 80.4% 88.9% 89.0% 89.9% 88.6% 89.0% 90.7% 89.9% 61.2% 89.3% 148.97 156.20 165.50 149.42 158.91 156.45 144.52 154.69 156.83 162.27 155.33 148.50 164.05 92.3% 88.6% 88.6% 93.4% 90.7% 89.7% 90.5% 86.5% 88.9% 89.6% 88.2% 83.3% 89.9% 91.6% 87.4% 83.7% 87.8% 93.0% 83.9% 89.3% 87.9% 81.2% 86.9% 88.1% 91.2% 87.3% 83.4% 92.2% 167.86 164.09 155.73 169.33 165.94 166.08 145.85 169.21 162.40 164.57 164.43 162.59 169.50 164.34 167.71 165.24 168.42 167.57 166.86 168.80 165.35 168.22 169.07 94.3% 92.2% 87.5% 95.1% 93.2% 93.3% 81.9% 95.1% 91.2% 92.5% 92.4% 91.3% 95.2% 0.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2% 92.8% 94.6% 172.95 169.53 164.95 169.67 171.24 163.71 160.94 170.86 103.75 163.31 155.90 140.05 164.31 125.67 154.12 158.55 161.92 146.77 97.2% 95.2% 92.7% 95.3% 96.2% 92.0% 90.4% 96.0% 58.3% 91.7% 87.6% 78.7% 92.3% 70.6% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.1% 91.0% 82.5% 172.09 166.81 168.79 157.00 169.53 165.15 147.75 167.36 145.33 163.74 159.25 142.83 163.97 170.75 157.19 157.70 155.76 164.28 94.1% 93.7% 94.8% 92.9% 94.5% 95.0% 168.11 158.92 165.10 162.69 164.44 149.56 94.4% 89.3% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 84.0% 158.47 157.76 167.03 161.41 129.73 170.59 96.7% 93.7% 94.8% 88.2% 95.2% 92.8% 83.0% 94.0% 81.6% 92.0% 89.5% 80.2% 92.1% 95.9% 88.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.6% 87.5% 92.3% 89.0% 88.6% 93.8% 90.7% 72.9% 95.8% 1Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 44 of 44 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate Total Baseline A-A White Hispanic Other 160.19 159.17 155.79 128.36 90.0% 89.4% Total Fair Park A-A White 157.37 150.70 145.89 Forest Park 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate  Franklin Gibbs Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale c c. c: c: c: c: Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 159.19 156.39 159.50 149.60 162.54 158.63 157.50 151.00 159.99 160.03 162.50 156.25 171.00 160.10 166.24 162.69 145.71 153.50 163.98 158.66 150.49 157.19 163.08 157.42 159.58 156.69 166.08 167.00 159.09 156.68 163.25 154.50 156.83 160.38 155.71 156.62 155.93 155.50 87.5% 72.1% 0.0% 88.4% 84.7% 82.0% 0.0% 89.6% 84.0% 91.3% \u0026lt;89.1% 88.5% 84.8% 89.9% 89.9% 91.3% 87.8% 96.1% 89.9% 93.4% 91.4% 81.9% 86.2% 92.1% 89.1% 84.5% 88.3% 91.6% 88.4% 89.7% 88.0% 143.29 162.67 154.76 150.88 148.79 165.33 150.67 163.57 164.49 164.67 166.43 164.19 158.84 163.60 161.25 169.00 159.01 164.02 162.37 165.56 163.40 163.34 158.47 152.04 153.30 162.40 156.92 162.12 162.38 93.3% 93.8% 89.4% 88.0% 91.7% 86.8% 88.1% 90.1% 87.5% 88.0% 87.6% 87.4% 155.59 164.50 161.93 157.87 163.14 156.67 169.40 160.86 154.60 158.23 150.70 162.33 89.4% 87.9% 80.5% 91.4% 0.0% 86.9% 84.8% 167.34 164.86 83.6% 0.0% 92.9% 84.6% 91.9% 92.4% 92.5% 93.5% 92.2% 89.2% 91.9% 90.6% 94.9% 89.3% 92.1% 91.2% 93.0% 91.8% 91.8% 89.0% 85.4% 86.1% 91.2% 88.2% 91.1% 91.2% 87.4% 92.4% 91.0% 88.7% 91.7% 88.0% 95.2% 90.4% 86.9% 88.9% 84.7% 91.2% 166.87 155.60 153.50 164.61 162.56 163.77 171.00 166.67 162.90 166.82 168.92 168.00 168.00 168.20 166.82 167.17 170.00 173.00 166.86 169.16 168.30 163.13 170.89 168.68 165.75 163.88 166.28 168.50 165.68 167.85 166.90 168.86 168.00 167.70 164.71 167.75 167.25 169.88 166.46 165.91 161.13 164.61 167.00 94.0% 92.6% 93.7% 87.4% 86.2% 92.5% 91.3% 92.0% 96.1% 93.6% 91.5% 93.7% 94.9% 94.4% 94.4% 94.5% 93.7% 93.9% 95.5% 97.2% 93.7% 95.0% 94.6% 91.6% 96.0% 94.8% 93.1% 92.1% 93.4% 94.7% 93.1% 94.3% 93.8% 94.9% 94.4% 94.2% 92.5% 94.2% 94.0% 95.4% 93.5% 93.2% 90.5% 92.5% 93.8% 163.59 155.34 154.43 164.78 158.33 155.85 155.21 148.55 168.00 170.25 154.03 162.84 168.15 164.50 156.21 166.08 159.42 154.00 0.00 170.33 159.40 167.60 163.28 167.38 171.42 165.95 160.67 91.9% 87.3% 86.8% 92.6% 88.9% 87.6% 87.2% 83.5% 94.4% 95.6% 86.5% 91.5% 94.5% 92.4% 87.8% 93.3% 89.6% 86.5% 0.0% 95.7% 89.6% 94.2% 91.7% 94.0% 163.71 159.00 158.36 167.79 162.33 159.83 155.89 139.23 130.00 156.86 152.33 169.31 167.95 172.75 166.31 168.20 159.32 147.44 174.00 34.50 157.78 153.48 158.65 169.00 159.66 162.26 157.63 165.75 146.00 161.55 161.40 163.38 167.00 169.75 162.63 152.70 144.13 157.53 158.50 92.0% 89.3% 89.0% 94.3% 91.2% c: c: c\nc 96.3% 93.2% 90.3% 86.2% 89.1% 94.9% 89.7% 91.2% 88.6% 93.1% 82.0% 90.8% 90.7% 91.8% 93.8% 95.4% 91.4% 85.8% 81.0% 88.5% 89.0% 170.30 162.48 168.75 173.07 167.35 165.04 162.05 165.60 56.50 164.50 166.57 158.53 162.21 153.50 165.00 165.35 166.01 168.00 173.33 165.84 162.47 160.53 166.70 171.00 89.8% 87.6% 78.2% 73.0% 88.1% 85.6% 95.1% 94.4% 97.1% 93.4% 94.5% 89.5% 82.8% 97.8% 19.4% 88.6% 95.7% 91.3% 94.8% 97.2% 94.0% 92.7% 91.0% 93.0% 31.7% 92.4% 93.6% 89.1% 91.1% 86.2% 92.7% 92.9% 93.3% 94.4% 97.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.2% 93.7% 96.1% c: c\nc\nc c c c c\nc c c c c c c c c c c c C c: C' C Q- c C CLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 45 of 45 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Dodd Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total Meadowcliff A-A White Hispanic Other Total Mitchell A-A White Hispanic Other Total King A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rockefeller A-A White Hispanic Other Total Geyer Springs A-A White Geyer Springs Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Rightsell A-A White Total Romine A-A White Hispanic Other Total Stephens A-A 155.77 160.08 155.21 152.08 158.28 160.03 152.62 144.29 157.84 156.63 152.64 151.00 0.00 156.45 162.18 161.89 167.90 153.14 161.83 165.30 164.38 167.50 171.50 165.06 159.91 152.17 143.11 158.63 158.22 163.15 145.00 160.18 158.45 163.00 158.48 163.42 141.02 148.97 155.57 156.97 158.17 87.5% 89.9% 87.2% 85.4% 0.0% 88.9% 89.9% 85.7% 81.1% 0.0% 88.7% 88.0% \u0026lt;85.8% 84.8% 0.0% 87.9% 91.1% 90.9% 94.3% 86.0% 90.9% 92.9% 92.3% 94.1% 96.3% 92.7% 89.8% 85.5% 80.4% 0.0% 89.1% 88.9% 91.7% 0.0% 81.5% 90.0% 89.0% 91.6% 89.0% 91.8% 79.2% 83.7% 87.4% 88.2% 88.9% 154.43 156.03 156.59 163.72 155.00 156.58 162.20 158.80 158.50 171.25 161.51 158.72 166.63 149.00 0.00 158.87 166.01 162.81 169.79 165.05 164.68 165.23 166.39 167.80 169.57 165.78 160.21 155.75 161.79 120.00 159.74 158.89 163.01 166.50 168.00 161.12 155.13 152.50 155.11 164.18 154.02 159.69 163.75 161.79 154.10 86.8% 87.7% 88.0% 92.0% 87.1% 88.0% 91.1% 89.2% 89.0% 96.2% 90.7% 89.2% 93.6% 83.7% 0.0% 89.3% 93.3% 91.5% 95.4% 92.7% 92.5% 92.8% 93.5% 94.3% 95.3% 93.1% 90.0% 87.5% 90.9% 67.4% 89.7% 89.3% 91.6% 93.5% 94.4% 90.5% 87.2% 85.7% 87.1% 92.2% 86.5% 89.7% 92.0% 90.9% 86.6% 165.59 167.70 166.71 162.27 166.99 167.71 156.73 164.48 171.00 165.35 167.18 168.00 136.00 0.00 166.97 169.71 168.11 170.50 170.44 169.06 167.22 166.56 136.37 169.50 166.17 166.50 164.61 161.53 0.00 166.09 166.64 166.08 171.00 168.78 166.45 165.61 0.00 165.61 167.93 162.17 156.90 148.14 164.57 164.72 93.0% 94.2% 93.7% 91.2% 0.0% 93.8% 94.2% 88.1% 92.4% 96.1% 92.9% 93.9% 94.4% 76.4% 0.0% 93.8% 95.3% 94.4% 95.8% 95.8% 95.0% 93.9% 93.6% 76.6% 95.2% 93.4% 93.5% 92.5% 90.7% 0.0% 93.3% 93.6% 93.3% 96.1% 94.8% 93.5% 93.0% 0.0% 93.0% 94.3% 91.1% 88.1% 83.2% 92.5% 92.5% 153.20 161.53 154.23 166.40 159.67 160.61 153.48 165.12 172.50 160.12 159.27 144.50 173.00 0.00 159.09 165.94 165.62 146.25 165.88 165.67 159.26 161.97 168.75 156.00 160.40 158.61 164.55 153.14 0.00 158.79 162.66 168.12 173.50 163.55 165.30 158.61 165.00 158.63 164.43 145.73 154.65 129.25 158.95 159.59 86.1% 90.7% 86.6% 93.5% 0.0% 89.7% 90.2% 86.2% 92.8% 96.9% 90.0% 89.5% 81.2% 97.2% 0.0% 89.4% 93.2% 93.0% 82.2% 93.2% 93.1% 89.5% 91.0% 94.8% 87.6% 90.1% 89.1% 92.4% 86.0% 0.0% 89.2% 91.4% 94.4% 97.5% 91.9% 92.9% 89.1% 92.7% 89.1% 92.4% 81.9% 86.9% 72.6% 89.3% 89.7% 163.17 161.95 157.50 156.05 159.66 166.85 154.46 170.75 176.50 165.45 160.45 137.60 0.00 42.00 158.95 169.86 172.43 153.14 171.12 170.62 163.11 169.11 164.13 171.42 164.93 161.33 144.10 156.60 0.00 160.12 167.30 165.59 172.50 156.63 166.20 164.94 0.00 164.94 165.42 157.11 161.13 170.67 164.16 156.79 91.7% 91.0% 88.5% 87.7% 0.0% 89.7% 93.7% 86.8% 95.9% 99.2% 92.9% 90.1% 77.3% 0.0% 23.6% 89.3% 95.4% 96.9% 86.0% 96.1% 95.9% 91.6% 95.0% 92.2% 96.3% 92.7% 90.6% 81.0% 88.0% 0.0% 90.0% 94.0% 93.0% 96.9% 88.0% 93.4% 92.7% 0.0% 92.7% 92.9% 88.3% 90.5% 95.9% 92.2% 88.1% I i I tLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 46 of 46 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate White Hispanic Other Total Washington A-A 155.67 151.17 152.00 157.85 159.90 87.5% 84.9% 85.4% 88.7% 89.8% White Hispanic Other 156.37 160.47 87.8% 90.2% Total 162.50 159.06 91.3% 89.4% Williams A-A White 2001-02 Days Present 146.56 164.50 154.00 154.19 162.56 153.95 155.69 159.86 159.25 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Hispanic Other Total Wilson A-A White Hispanic Other 164.64 164.29 76.00 162.04 164.16 155.48 148.63 169.00 Total 164.67 155.19 Woodruff A-A White Hispanic Other 155.59 153.44 144.00 Total Mabelvale A-A White 155.50 155.24 155.13 154.40 92.5% 92.3% 42.7% \u0026lt;91.0% 92.2% 87.3% 83.5% 94.9% 92.5% 87.2% 87.4% 86.2% 80.9% 87.4% 87.2% 87.2% 86.7% 166.78 161.04 163.00 158.55 163.85 154.75 162.91 172.25 143.80 155.17 157.63 160.31 117.00 109.50 157.12 159.02 152.20  Mabelvale Hispanic Other Total 162.00 121.50 154.80 Terry A-A White 158.67 155.80 Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield c c c c c Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate c Hispanic Other 154.48 163.37 91.0% 68.3% 87.0% 89.1% 87.5% 86.8% 91.8% 153.78 157.16 161.59 154.80 138.32 136.94 82.3% 92.4% 86.5% 86.6% 91.3% 86.5% 87.5% 89.8% 89.5% 93.7% 90.5% 91.6% 89.1% 92.1% 86.9% 91.5% 96.8% 80.8% 87.2% 88.6% 90.1% 65.7% 61.5% 88.3% 89.3% 85.5% 86.4% 0.0% 88.3% 90.8% 87.0% 77.7% 76.9% 162.75 163.25 Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A 157.48 157.49 161.28 166.00 162.88 159.80 159.44 160.38 161.06 131.57 159.36 153.43 88.5% 88.5% 90.6% 93.3% 91.5% 89.8% 89.6% 90.1% 90.5% 73.9% 89.5% 86.2% 155.59 157.05 161.00 138.00 151.00 159.21 160.36 157.52 157.75 166.38 159.26 156.44 87.4% 88.2% 90.4% 77.5% 84.8% 89.4% 90.1% 88.5% 88.6% 93.5% 89.5% 87.9% 162.00 164.62 167.66 165.30 158.66 164.04 165.95 169.56 166.14 165.50 165.50 167.82 165.61 168.00 166.33 171.25 165.82 165.68 163.35 0.00 166.50 165.45 166.06 163.52 168.86 172.00 165.67 167.53 165.62 167.16 164.65 166.66 166.27 167.52 169.75 169.10 167.10 166.87 166.14 159.33 164.38 166.38 164.73 91.4% 91.7% 91.0% 92.5% 94.2% 92.9% 89.1% 92.2% 93.2% 95.3% 93.3% 93.0% 93.0% 94.3% 93.0% 94.4% 93.4% 96.2% 93.2% 93.1% 91.8% 0.0% 93.5% 92.9% 93.3% 91.9% 94.9% 96.6% 93.1% 94.1% 93.0% 93.9% 92.5% 93.6% 93.4% 94.1% 95.4% 95.0% 93.9% 93.7% 93.3% 89.5% 92.3% 93.5% 92.5% 159.64 148.94 164.33 159.30 165.50 159.86 159.75 155.68 163.16 165.05 165.91 168.00 164.31 165.34 157.66 163.59 166.45 161.00 158.38 161.51 146.24 0.00 166.00 160.03 161.79 153.23 167.44 164.83 160.62 162.66 160.27 161.58 164.32 161.88 164.91 163.80 155.67 161.42 164.00 158.13 160.62 151.78 162.50 158.77 150.32 89.7% 83.7% 92.3% 89.5% 93.0% 89.8% 89.7% 87.5% 91.7% 92.7% 93.2% 94.4% 92.3% 92.9% 88.6% 91.9% 93.5% 90.4% 89.0% 90.7% 82.2% 0.0% 93.3% 89.9% 90.9% 86.1% 94.1% 92.6% 90.2% 91.4% 90.0% 90.8% 92.3% 90.9% 92.6% 92.0% 87.5% 90.7% 92.1% 88.8% 90.2% 85.3% 91.3% 89.2% 84.4% 152.60 142.20 168.00 156.39 162.43 163.59 165.39 164.00 162.86 169.96 167.06 169.63 168.02 168.70 165.75 165.77 168.75 175.25 166.01 158.63 142.25 159.00 64.00 156.97 162.49 150.53 151.46 111.33 159.65 163.90 161.20 154.51 150.00 161.33 166.63 166.21 168.33 151.29 165.91 165.86 163.57 169.67 149.89 165.06 160.74 85.7% 79.9% 94.4% 87.9% 91.3% 91.9% 92.9% 92.1% 91.5% 95.5% 93.9% 95.3% 94.4% 94.8% 93.1% 93.1% 94.8% 98.5% 93.3% 89.1% 79.9% 89.3% 36.0% 88.2% 91.3% 84.6% 85.1% 62.5% 89.7% 92.1% 90.6% 86.8% 84.3% 90.6% 93.6% 93.4% 94.6% 85.0% 93.2% 93.2% 91.9% 95.3% 84.2% 92.7% 90.3% c c c c c c c c c c c c\nc c: c c c c c c r C c c c c: c Q' or. c cLittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 47 of 47 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate  White 148.52 Hispanic Other 160.07 109.75 Total Watson A-A White Hispanic Other Total LRSD-R A-A White Total Total A-A Elementary School White Hispanic Other Total 153.64 156.63 140.82 159.63 172.00 156.33 149.59 152.85 150.07 158.67 158.52 154.30 155.83 158.43 83.4% 89.9% 130.21 154.57 61.7% 86.3% 88.0% 79.1% 89.7% 96.6% 87.8% 84.0% 85.9% 84.3% \u0026lt;89.1% 89.1% 86.7% 87.5% 89.0% 0.00 154.97 157.03 118.29 161.40 110.00 155.82 149.74 114.71 146.72 158.99 158.54 154.88 156.38 158.66 73.2% 86.8% 0.0% 87.1% 88.2% 66.5% 90.7% 61.8% 87.5% 84.1% 64.4% 82.4% 89.3% 89.1% 87.0% 87.9% 89.1% 168.00 165.00 164.00 164.82 165.86 157.08 164.79 0.00 165.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.55 165.86 163.22 166.48 166.23 94.4% 92.7% 92.1% 92.6% 93.2% 88.2% 92.6% 0.0% 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.6% 93.2% 91.7% 93.5% 93.4% 167.14 162.60 0.00 152.43 157.12 152.18 158.57 172.00 157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 160.61 162.21 159.94 161.13 160.99 93.9% 91.3% 0.0% 85.6% 88.3% 85.5% 89.1% 96.6% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.2% 91.1% 89.9% 90.5% 90.4% 163.29 159.11 0.00 160.50 159.06 135.00 163.20 25.00 158.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.45 163.42 162.49 157.81 163.26 91.7% 89.4% 0.0% 90.2% 89.4% 75.8% 91.7% 14.0% 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.8% 91.8% 91.3% 88.7% 91.7% Lddle School Mann A-A White Hispanic Other Total Dunhar A-A White Dunbar Hispanic Other Total Forest Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Pulaski Heights A-A White Hispanic Other Total Southwest A-A White Hispanic Other Total Henderson A-A White 163.92 159.38 165.81 159.17 161.88 164.51 164.26 162.60 169.76 164.57 161.25 160.85 146.88 162.50 160.91 155.62 162.67 155.33 167.50 158.72 155.07 138.22 102.77 0.00 152.95 159.61 152.98 92.1% 89.5% 93.2% 89.4% 90.9% 92.4% 92.3% 91.3% 95.4% 92.5% 90.6% 90.4% 82.5% 91.3% 90.4% 87.4% 91.4% 87.3% 94.1% 89.2% 87.1% 77.7% 57.7% 0.0% 85.9% 89.7% 85.9% 164.94 163.23 167.79 165.14 164.26 166.30 164.28 155.77 166.35 165.24 162.72 164.43 160.71 127.13 162.87 156.19 163.39 143.00 154.89 159.20 156.91 155.10 144.28 0.00 156.64 163.02 149.27 92.7% 91.7% 94.3% 92.8% 92.3% 93.4% 92.3% 87.5% 93.5% 92.8% 91.4% 92.4% 90.3% 71.4% 91.5% 87.7% 91.8% 80.3% 87.0% 89.4% 88.2% 87.1% 81.1% 0.0% 88.0% 91.6% 83.9% 167.92 167.53 170.18 170.80 167.89 168.89 166.37 164.52 168.24 167.87 166.08 165.16 171.92 136.50 165.75 164.80 166.97 170.42 171.20 165.78 162.96 142.80 158.88 169.25 162.17 167.08 161.16 94.3% 94.1% 95.6% 96.0% 94.3% 94.9% 93.5% 92.4% 94.5% 94.3% 93.3% 92.8% 96.6% 76.7% 93.1% 92.6% 93.8% 95.7% 96.2% 93.1% 91.6% 80.2% 89.3% 95.1% 91.1% 93.9% 90.5% 165.58 163.74 156.33 166.02 164.60 167.70 162.77 164.61 158.91 165.54 162.64 155.81 166.65 167.67 161.13 157.17 164.21 167.67 170.71 160.08 156.74 139.41 149.38 167.25 156.30 163.28 157.10 93.0% 92.0% 87.8% 93.3% 92.5% 94.2% 91.4% 92.5% 89.3% 93.0% 91.4% 87.5% 93.6% 94.2% 90.5% 88.3% 92.3% 94.2% 95.9% 89.9% 88.1% 78.3% 83.9% 94.0% 87.8% 91.7% 88.3% 167.07 163.99 162.97 165.89 165.57 170.64 167.66 165.70 165.56 169.28 168.12 168.45 173.10 174.43 168.36 160.46 165.12 167.50 157.08 162.41 159.16 159.80 157.45 174.25 159.21 168.18 160.43 93.9% 92.1% 91.6% 93.2% 93.0% 95.9% 94.2% 93.1% 93.0% 95.1% 94.4% 94.6% 97.2% 98.0% 94.6% 90.1% 92.8% 94.1% 88.2% 91.2% 89.4% 89.8% 88.5% 97.9% 89.4% 94.5% 90.1%Little Rock School District Portfolio School Cloverdale Mabelvale Garland Total Middle School\nh School Central Hall Metro Parkview Fair Page 48 of 48 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 Ethnicity Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Oth(H^ Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A Total A-A White Hispanic Other Total A-A White Hispanic Other 2000-01 Days Present Percent Rate 2001-02 Days Present Percent Rate 2002-03 Days Present Percent Rate 2003-04 Days Present Percent Rate 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate c c c: c c c c 163.00 165.56 158.60 157.61 138.15 151.27 169.13 155.93 157.95 155.45 143.58 165.90 157.24 109.93 59.50 0.00 0.00 108.33 158.57 159.13 151.39 165.36 158.64 152.55 157.36 131.81 166.40 154.70 147.87 150.48 131.38 157.85 147.55 0.00 0.00 165.18 161.53 158.43 167.71 163.52 156.04 157.78 150.65 171.17 91.6% 93.0% 89.1% 88.5% 77.6% 85.0% 95.0% 87.6% 88.7% 162.00 115.38 160.14 163.30 163.22 162.60 170.67 163.28 161.72 91.0% 64.8% 90.0% 91.7% 91.7% 91.3% 95.9% 91.7% 90.9% 155.42 168.21 165.45 168.83 157.49 87.3% 94.5% 166.51 87.3% 80.7% 93.2% \u0026lt;88.3% 61.8% 33.4% 0.0% 0.0% 60.9% 89.1% 89.4% 85.1% 92.9% 89.1% 85.7% 88.4% 74.1% 93.5% 86.9% 83.1% 84.5% 73.8% 88.7% 82.9% 0.0% 0.0% 92.8% 90.7% 89.0% 94.2% 91.9% 87.7% 88.6% 84.6% 96.2% 150.36 148.83 167.92 159.51 120.10 110.77 72.50 0.00 118.87 160.87 161.11 157.99 158.30 160.81 152.51 157.48 157.77 163.84 154.85 149.87 144.33 147.51 162.25 148.66 0.00 0.00 165.42 161.19 163.83 168.92 163.55 155.05 153.51 151.95 168.67 84.5% 83.6% 94.3% 89.6% 67.5% 62.2% 40.7% 0.0% 66.8% 90.4% 90.5% 88.8% 88.9% 90.3% 166.79 171.83 168.09 167.35 163.65 168.42 171.90 166.62 130.16 89.00 128.75 0.00 129.33 165.90 165.21 163.76 168.27 165.70 92.9% 94.8% 88.5% 93.7% 96.5% 94.4% 94.0% 91.9% 94.6% 96.6% 93.6% 73.1% 50.0% 72.3% 0.0% 72.7% 93.2% 92.8% 92.0% 94.5% 93.1% 161.71 162.83 161.62 138.82 158.08 175.00 160.23 165.66 157.09 149.11 135.17 163.15 114.98 106.56 0.00 0.00 114.27 161.49 160.36 160.29 162.68 161.20 93.5% 90.8% 91.5% 90.8% 78.0% 88.8% 98.3% 90.0% 93.1% 88.3% 83.8% 75.9% 91.7% 64.6% 59.9% 0.0% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.1% 90.1% 91.4% 90.6% 160.48 177.19 167.02 168.53 161.90 166.20 177.83 168.01 169.14 159.41 156.44 167.24 111.15 107.97 134.00 151.00 111.17 163.39 163.96 164.03 167.36 163.60 90.2% 99.5% 93.8% 94.7% 91.0% 93.4% 99.9% 94.4% 95.0% 89.6% 87.9% 0.0% 94.0% 62.4% 60.7% 75.3% 84.8% 62.5% 91.8% 92.1% 92.2% 94.0% 91.9% c. c: c: c. c\nc. c. c\nc c. c. c. c c: c c c c c 85.7% 88.5% 88.6% 92.0% 87.0% 84.2% 81.1% 82.9% 91.2% 83.5% 0.0% 0.0% 92.9% 90.6% 92.0% 94.9% 91.9% 87.1% 86.2% 85.4% 94.8% 161.76 164.00 162.70 170.98 162.90 158.91 153.77 148.48 166.71 157.26 52.71 52.71 169.92 166.25 158.48 169.33 167.95 164.33 153.12 163.47 170.08 90.9% 92.1% 91.4% 96.1% 91.5% 89.3% 86.4% 154.42 158.42 161.86 164.41 156.48 148.30 147.21 86.8% 89.0% 90.9% 92.4% 87.9% 83.3% 82.7% 167.31 169.14 165.97 173.36 168.29 162.04 152.99 83.4% 93.7% 88.3% 29.6% 29.6% 95.5% 93.4% 89.0% 95.1% 94.4% 92.3% 86.0% 91.8% 95.6% 146.53 152.52 148.05 46.00 46.00 166.63 162.48 165.01 169.76 164.94 158.38 153.22 161.39 163.38 82.3% 85.7% 83.2% 25.8% 25.8% 93.6% 91.3% 92.7% 95.4% 92.7% 89.0% 86.1% 90.7% 91.8% 161.10 149.44 160.59 0.00 0.00 173.58 171.20 167.52 175.19 172.41 169.59 164.86 165.52 156.28 94.0% 95.0% 93.2% 97.4% 94.5% 91.0% 85.9% 90.5% 84.0% 90.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.5% 96.2% 94.1% 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 92.6% 93.0% 87.8% c c c c c c c: c: c: c: c: c: C'  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 49 of 49 Little Rock School District Student Attendance Averages by School and Ethnicity 2000-01 through 2005-06 School Ethnicity 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Days Present Percent Rate Total McClellan A-A 156.34 157.03  White Hispanic Other 149.28 156.00 162.75 87.8% 88.2% 83.9% 87.6% 91.4% 154.80 159.19 154.69 154.31 0.00 87.0% 89.4% 86.9% 86.7% 0.0% 162.27 164.31 159.32 168.94 172.00 91.2% 92.3% Total ACC A-A White Hispanic Other Total Total High School A-A White Hispanic Other Total 156.42 92.77 94.85 108.13 144.00 93.65 151.95 155.21 138.12 164.79 152.76 87.9% 52.1% 53.3% 60.7% 80.9% 52.6% 85.4% \u0026lt;87.2% 77.6% 92.6% 85.8% 158.80 84.27 86.53 53.00 89.2% 47.3% 48.6% 29.8% 16.00 83.74 152.60 153.95 148.63 164.01 153.04 9.0% 47.0% 85.7% 86.5% 83.5% 92.1% 86.0% 164.12 117.34 103.60 73.67 0.00 114.19 161.46 160.86 153.40 169.59 161.19 89.5% 94.9% 96.6% 92.2% 65.9% 58.2% 41.4% 0.0% 64.2% 90.7% 90.4% 86.2% 95.3% 90.6% 157.68 155.81 152.51 143.25 167.50 155.42 67.85 81.50 129.00 0.00 69.36 153.37 157.03 152.69 163.85 154.55 88.6% 87.5% 85.7% 80.5% 94.1% 87.3% 38.1% 45.8% 72.5% 0.0% 39.0% 86.2% 88.2% 85.8% 92.1% 86.8% 168.81 162.49 155.87 162.26 172.25 162.14 107.17 102.50 119.50 144.50 107.46 164.94 166.72 162.51 168.05 165.37 94.8% 91.3% 87.6% 91.2% 96.8% 91.1% 60.2% 57.6% 67.1% 81.2% 60.4% 92.7% 93.7% 91.3% 94.4% 92.9% 1 I 1 ILittle Rock School District Portfolio Page 50 of 50 c  Grade Level Pre-K 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Little Rock School District Rate of Student Attendance by Grade Level and Lunch Status 2000-01 through 2005-06 Lunch Status Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total Free/Reduced Paid Total 2000-01 Percent Days Present 2001-02 Percent Days Present 2002-03 Percent Days Present 2003-04 Percent Days Absent 2004-05 Percent Days Present 86.6% 87.7% 87.0% 86.9% 89.0% 87.7% 88.2% 89.5% 88.6% 89.1% 89.6% 89.3% 89.2% 90.4% 89.6% 88.8% 91.0% 89.6% 89.3% 91.4% 90.2% 88.5% 90.9% 89.5% 87.5% 90.7% 89.0% 87.7% 91.5% 89.6% 83.2% 86.6% 85.2% 87.7% 90.5% 88.8% 87.8% 90.3% 88.7% 87.9% 90.0% 88.6% 89.1% 90.6% 89.6% 88.1% 91.1% 89.2% 89.1% 90.1% 89.5% 88.3% 92.0% 89.6% 90.3% 92.7% 91.3% 89.6% 91.7% 90.5% 89.2% 91.7% 90.4% 84.9% 86.7% 85.9% 92.4% 88.4% 87.9% 93.5% 92.8% 92.3% 94.1% 92.9% 92.7% 94.5% 93.3% 93.4% 93.9% 93.6% 93.3% 94.1% 93.5% 93.1% 94.3% 93.5% 93.6% 94.5% 93.9% 93.4% 94.2% 93.7% 93.0% 93.9% 93.3% 92.2% 94.3% 93.1% 88.7% 91.1% 90.1% 90.9% 89.4% 88.9% 92.8% 90.1% 89.2% 92.3% 90.2% 88.9% 93.4% 90.4% 89.1% 92.5% 90.3% 90.0% 92.5% 90.8% 90.3% 93.4% 91.5% 90.4% 92.1% 91.1% 89.2% 92.0% 90.4% 89.6% 92.8% 91.1% 84.4% 88.4% 86.6% 93.2% 89.8% 90.3% 93.3% 91.3% 90.4% 93.2% 91.3% 90.7% 93.8% 91.7% 91.6% 94.5% 92.6% 91.7% 94.1% 92.5% 91.5% 94.2% 92.4% 92.1% 94.5% 93.0% 92.6% 93.8% 93.0% 91.9% 94.9% 93.0% 90.3% 92.9% 91.6% c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 10 Paid Total .4Paid Total Paid Total Paid Grade Level Little Rock School District Portfolio Lunch Status Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Free/Reduced Total 100.0% 80.0% Little Rock School District Rate of Student Attendance by Grade Level and Lunch Status 2000-01 through 2005-06 2000-01 Percent Days Present 2001-02 Percent Days Present 2002-03 Percent Days Present 2003-04 Percent Days Absent Page 51 of51 2004-05 Percent Days Present 83.5% 85.9% 85.2% 85.0% 86.3% 86.0% 87.4% 86.1% 86.3% 87.7% 88.6% 88.2% 84.8% 86.5% 85.9% 85.1% 85.2% 85.2% 88.4% 85.1% 85.7% 88.2% 89.0% 88.6% 89.5% 91.0% 90.4% 91.0% 90.8% 90.8% 92.4% 89.5% 90.1% 92.5% 92.7% 92.6% Attendance by Lunch Status 2000-2001 through 2004-2005 90.0% 85.0% 95.0% ---- Free/Reduced ---- Paid 1 2 3 4 5 Years 86.0% 87.6% 87.0% 85.8% 86.6% 86.4% 87.6% 86.0% 86.4% 88.8% 90.4% 89.5% 89.9% 93.1% 91.7% 91.7% 93.1% 92.7% 93.8% 91.9% 92.4% 91.1% 93.5% 92.1% Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 52 of 52 c: c\nc: c: Little Rock School District c: Number of Student Discipline Referrals by Grade Level 2000-01 through 2004-05 Year c: cc Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Prc-K K 1 4 6 8 9 10 11 5 8 4 7 11 38 50 65 106 131 141 904 853 747 1,052 584 286 58 70 90 119 136 187 914 968 727 788 666 369 61 127 71 148 135 215 959 1,078 878 1,018 666 403 83 107 162 115 185 220 772 976 880 1,229 715 456 105 149 158 212 170 275 786 869 827 1,243 720 412 c c: c c c Q, Q. c 185 144 201 258 250 Total 5,147 5,328 6,043 6,165 6,187 12 c ccc c c c c c cc c. c. c. c. Q-. q: c. c: c: c c* c  Little Rock School District Portfolio c 200.0 o  150.0 w O 100.0 a\u0026gt; ra . tn Page 53 of 53 50.0 0.0 c 200.0 oI 150.0 00 o Discipline Referrals per 100 students Grades 4 through 8 1 2000-01 O 100.0 - U)  a: * X 8 6 5 50.0 0.0 $ -.-4 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Year Discipline Referrals per 100 students Grades 9 through 12 X- X- 11 10 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Year Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 54 of 54 Little Rock School District Rate of Student Discipline Referrals by Grade Level Events per 100 enrolled students cc c: f Grade / Year Pre-K K 1 2 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 Total (A o o  ci) oo W) m \u0026lt;u O' 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 2000-01 0.5 2.0 2.5 3.3 5.5 6.6 7.0 46.7 47.5 43.5 52.2 32.2 .'7.6 11.9 20.4 2001-02 0.7 3.0 3.5 4.6 6.2 1.2 9.5 46.7 51.5 41.2 39.5 38.4 23.0 10.2 21.1 2002-03 0.3 3.0 6.4 3.7 7.6 7.2 11.6 49.3 53.6 48.4 50.1 37.5 26.4 14.5 23.9 2003-04 0.7 4.1 5.1 8.2 6.0 9.4 12.0 42.0 49.3 44.8 58.8 40.1 29.2 19.4 2004-05 0.9 8.1 7.4 7.7 10.6 9.0 14.6 40.3 47.4 45.4 66.2 31.0 22.6 16.0 c\nc: c: c: c: 24.4 24.1 c c: c c c\nc c c c c c. c c Discipline Referrals per 100 Students Cohorts of Pre-K through 7th grades 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 3rd to 7th 2nd to 6th 1st to Sth K to 4th  Pre-K to 3rd Year c c: c c c c c c, c c c c  c c Little Rock School District Portfolio o 0^ (A re (Ac re o 3 Ia oo Page 55 of 55 300 0 Discipline Referrals per 100 Students Cohorts of 4th through 12th grades 200 150 100 50 250 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Sth to 12th 7th to 11th 6th to 10th 5th to 9th  4th to Sth Year Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 56 of 56 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 c c: c\nc: c: c\nc\nc: Elementary Badgett c: 0 p K 0 0 c: 1 2 3 4 5 Total Bale P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Baseline P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Booker K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Brady P K 1 2 3 4 5 Brady EE 1 7 0 0 0 8 0 5 2 0 0 3 5 15 0 4 1 3 0 2 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 4 4 0 23 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 6 2 5 2 0 4 6 19 2 2 2 1 1 I 0 0 0 1 4 0 14 0 10 0 29 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 1 3 2 0 10 1 7 29 0 1 3 2 3 3 8 0 0 2 2 4 1 15 3 27 0 0 1 0 2 1 11 15 0 0 1 1 12 9 23 0 1 1 1 4 1 6 0 5 0 4 5 7 8 29 0 1 1 3 1 2 9 17 0 1 5 1 3 9 19 1 4 1 0 14 3 0 c\nC c\nc c C- C c\nc. c C C c C C c c: c C C c: c C C c c c c c: c: c\nc: 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 57 of 57  7) 7) Carver Chicot Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level Total K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 1 3 4 5 EE Total 2000-01 7 0 0 1 1 1 7 11 0 0 3 2 3 1 0 9 2001-02 I 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park p K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p 9 2 4 3 8 7 9 33 0 7 3 4 12 15 15 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 8 0 20 2 5 8 14 19 21 69 0 7 11 5 18 15 24 0 80 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 9 0 26 8 3 13 11 10 25 70 0 3 4 22 11 23 34 97 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 8 0 1 2 3 5 3 0 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 23 7 II 14 24 3 30 89 1 15 14 16 16 16 32 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 5 1 4 5 20 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 58 of 58 cc c Little Rock School District c Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 c cc Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Grade Level K 1 2 3 4 5 Total p K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total p 2000-01 0 5 0 0 I 1 7 0 0 0 8 6 1 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2001-02 0 3 1 4 1 2 II 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002-03 2 2 2 2 12 0 20 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003-04 1 0 0 5 1 13 0 6 6 6 8 1 4 32 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 6 3 2004-05 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 1 3 5 3 3 1 9 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 c CC CCcc CCC c ccC CC C CC  K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Gibbs K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Jefferson p 1 0 2 10 5 c 10 2 1 9 6 30 1 3 5 9 6 3 27 0 16 2 5 0 10 33 0 0 1 5 15 9 36 0 4 3 2 5 10 26 2 0 2 6 2 2 19 0 9 9 10 15 13 69 0 0 0 3 6 8 17 0 9 1 5 3 10 34 1 0 1 0 3 10 15 0 C QCcc QCCc c C K 4 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 c CCC 1 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 59 of 59 3 -5 King Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 1 3 4 5 EE Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 2000-01 1 3 8 1 18 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 7 Mabelvale P 2 K 1 1 1 2 6 3 4 4 4 5 (\u0026gt; EE Total 30 McDermott P 0 K 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 4 4 5 0 Total 6 Meadowcliff p 0 K 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mitchell P 0 0 1 10 14 25 1 2001-02 r 0 2002-03 1 2003-04 0 2004-05 2 14 2 9 0 29 0 1 2 1 5 0 0 15 0 3 3 3 3 3 17 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 12 18 I 1 3 4 0 9 1 1 8 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 6 5 3 3 6 1 24 0 2 1 4 8 0 1 1 5 2 1 0 10 0 0 6 1 1 3 6 17 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 8 0 7 1 19 12 3 0 43 I 1 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 7 5 I 15 2 9 0 3 0 9 10 33 0 0 4 3 6 5 8 26 0 7 1 0 4 2 2 21 0 5 1 1 1 K 3 8 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 6 8 2 5Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 60 of 60 c c c Little Rock School District c Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 c c c Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 EE Total Otter Creek Total 15 41 12 15 46 33 20 20 20 13 20 18 15 46 70 C 3 8 6 2 7 c 4 5 P K 1 1 3 4 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 4 4 3 0 3 6 0 0 1 5 5 1 0 8 5 6 1 6 2 1 0 5 5 9 c c c c c c c c Pulaski 0 0 0 p Heights c 1 0 0 1 0 K 1 1 3 0 1 11 2 0 2 0 3 5 3 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 0 0 2 4  c C c Total 29 Rightsell 19 II Total Rockefeller Total 13 18 Romine 13 19 13 14 26 81 35 13 12 10 10 59 15 22 43 23 16 16 127 c: c: c: c: c: c? c: c- c\n5 0 2 p 0 K 0 1 2 3 4 5 p K 1 1 3 4 5 p K 1 2 3 4 3 1 0 0 3 8 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 3 2 4 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 8 5 0 1 8 1 3 0 0 3 3 0 9 0 1 5 6 4 8 0 9 5 0 0 1 5 1 4 6 0 0 4 6 1 2 2 0 7 0 0 4 0 7 2 c c c c c c c c c C C c c I1  Little Rock School District Por^'olio Page 61 of 61 .1 1 Little Rock School District   Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level  2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 5 1 1 5 9 7 EE 0 2 Total 4 7 17 20 20 Stephens P 0 K 2 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total Terry P K 1 1 3 4 5 Total Wakefield P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Washington P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE 2 15 15 7 43 \"o 4 4 1 1 1 15 22 0 0 2 0 o 3 1 6 1 0 I 1 5 1 (, Washington Watson Total P K 1 1 3 15 0 q 1 2 2 y 3 9 2 1 5 15 10 \"o 51 T 5 T Io 4 7 4 33 0 o' 0 2 0 1 9 0 0 1 2 2 q 0 7 0 0 4 0 2 2 6 8 15 4 16 1 58 o 4 4 6 9 4 10 37 3 1 0 0 1 6 11 'o' 0 y 0 0 y 4 1 Io 0 2 1 y 0 1 5 8 14 1 27 7 (\u0026gt;9 T 4 9 4 1 8 1 29 0 o 1 1 7 '9 18 0 3 0 5 q 0 5 13 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 18 1 14 6 ()2 1 14 20 14 15 T 17 89 0 1 y 1 1 4 1 20 3 2 4 15 11 10 47 0 1 0 1 I. 0 0 1 6 4Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 62 of 62 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-0S Western Hills Williams Wilson 5 0 2 2 1 0 Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 Total K 1 1 3 4 5 Total P K 1 2 3 4 5 EE Total 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 4 4 2 6 13 10 44 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 6 14 0 0 4 1 9 2 5 27 0 3 2 1 3 4 13 0 3 0 8 1 9 1 0 22 8 0 2 10 4 5 3 6 30 1 0 0 5 2 2 10 0 1 0 1 1 10 6 0 19 4 0 3 4 2 3 10 5 27 1 2 4 1 0 2 10 0 2 3 1 0 3 2 11 5 0 8 1 3 7 8 4 32 1 5 4 5 3 8 27 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 10  Woodruff p K 1 2 3 4 5 Total LRSD-R 3 LRSD-R 4 5 Total Total P 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 22 21 23 66 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 12 19 24 55 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 11 c c C' c c\nc\nc\nc. c: c: c: c. c\nc\nc\nc\nc c C C C c C C c c c c c C Elementary School K 1 2 3 38 58 61 83 105 50 65 106 20 90 119 127 71 148 107 162 115 149 158 212 c c c  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 63 of 63 5     \"5 1 Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 I 2004-05 4 5 EE Total Middle Mann Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale 6 7 8 Total 6 7 8 Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 6 7 8 SM Total 131 141 536 13 42 45 100 128 68 100 296 146 127 108 381 126 137 121 384 91 114 97 302 95 70 64 229 201 204 111 516 98 72 76 246 136 187 6 674 46 75 65 186 112 94 77 283 152 144 107 16 419 111 122 89 3 325 136 91 75 9 311 81 146 81 30 338 129 109 115 I 354 123 142 53 9 327 135 215 8 769 67 107 86 260 no 69 68 247 168 154 102 12 436 107 121 120 4 352 137 132 93 21 383 118 127 102 12 359 129 144 144 2 419 115 157 125 0 397 185 220 879 56 91 100 247 117 101 50 268 133 95 105 333 100 106 122 328 95 no 89 294 92 123 125 340 93 157 136 386 85 167 113 365 170 275 1,080 67 92 236 94 118 78 290 94 79 84 257 68 120 57 245 96 125 120 341 106 no 94 310 104 72 113 289 129 105 126 360Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 64 of 64 Garland Total Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06 Grade Level 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SM Total 6 2000-01 6 19 25 31 21 8 4 114 904 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Middle School 7 8 9 10 11 12 SM Total ACC Hi^l\u0026lt; 9 10 11 12 Total Central 9 10 24 45 65 66 29 16 5 0 250 914 8 1 28 67 38 56 40 9 218 959 26 40 97 31 12 2 209 772 48 78 192 63 47 9 465 786 853 747 31 21 8 4 2,568 3 5 2 1 11 213 64 968 727 66 29 16 5 68 2,793 3 6 4 3 16 174 85  Fair Hall Metro 11 12 SS Total 9 10 11 12 ss Total 9 10 11 12 SS Total 9 4 26 307 124 74 89 30 317 431 222 104 73 830 49 8 316 182 158 53 40 8 441 212 219 150 47 1 629 c c c c c c c c C C c c C C 1,078 878 56 40 9 51 3,071 1 2 11 4 18 270 112 54 35 1 472 183 141 99 17 12 452 311 177 168 75 4 735 0 976 880 97 31 12 2 2,770 0 0 1 5 6 222 141 97 38 498 214 175 81 34 504 333 219 127 104 783 869 827 192 63 47 9 2,793 0 0 1 1 2 222 116 51 51 440 181 147 75 50 453 416 191 134 52 793 C c c C c C c C C c C C c c C C c c c C C C C c c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 65 of 65 1  Little Rock School District Number of Student Discipline Referrals by School and Grade Level 2000-01 through 2005-06    McClellan Parkview Total High School Grade Level 10 11 12 Total 10 11 12 SS Total 10 11 12 Total 10 II 12 SS Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 238 173 52 31 494 12 25 27 20 84 1,021 563 278 181 2,043 118 164 63 30 376 33 34 11 83 722 637 353 139 10 1,861 186 162 47 37 435 11 32 15 33 91 962 626 394 201 20 2,203 338 130 116 48 632 25 19 22 27 93 1,132 684 444 256 2,516 173 161 78 57 469 59 42 26 30 157 1,051 657 365 241 2,314 0 0 0 9 9 9 1 3 5 0 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 66 of 66 CCcc Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 School Elementary Suspension ___IiE___ Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 C Cccc c c 1 0 5 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 5 3 1 0 10 1 1 Short Term 4 0 4 7 12 3 c S 2 6 7 9 9 C K 0 2 3 0 0 c  Total 19 29 23 19 Booker Long Term Total Bale Expulsion Total 13 12 Short Term EE Total 15 20 25 24 23 Long Term C C CC c Q EE Total Expulsion C C C C C 3 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 3 0 7 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 4 5 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 c Cccc ccc c c cc c Q C c 7)  Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 67 of 67   )  Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06     School Suspension Type___ Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 EE Total Short Term EE Total 20 17 15 Brady Long Term EE Total Badgett Expulsion EE Total Short Term Total Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 2 0 5 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 68 of 68 c Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 cc School Suspension ___IlEe___ Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 0 0 cc 5 0 0 K 0 0 c p 0 Total 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Expulsion Total McDermott Carver Short Term Long Term Expulsion Short Term Total Total Total 14 19 18 13 10 10 25 25 II 14 22 25 Total II 33 66 69 82 5 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 I 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 8 7 9 2 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 2 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 3 3 6 5 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 cccc C C C cccc c cc cc ccccLcCc c CC cccc   Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 69 of 69   3  Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 School Suspension Type___ Grade Level 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Long Term Total Expulsion '-1 Total Baseline Fair Park Short Term Long Term Expulsion Short Term EE Total EE Total EE Total 10 13    71 \"1 1 3 4 s K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 8 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 i 3 3 0 0 1 1c Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 70 of 70 c Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06 cc c School Suspension Type Grade Level 4 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 0 1 2 0 2 ccc c 5 0 6 4 2 3 K 0 0 0 2 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 8 9 4 6 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc cCc c Long Term Expulsion Total Total Forest Park Short Term 12 Total 19 13 Long Term Total c c c c Expulsion c c c c 5 0 0 0 0 0 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc ccc c C cccc c cc c cc   Little Rock School District Portfolio Page 71 of 71    Little Rock School District Type and Number of Student Suspensions by School and Grade Level 2000-01 to 2005-06  School Suspension ___TjE?___ Grade Level Total 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 i -J Short Term 11 EE 'i Franklin Long Term Expulsion Total EE Total EE Total 27 12 26 24 Gibbs Short Term 15 10 Total 27 36 17 16 15 Long Term Total Expulsion     1 1 3 4 5 K P 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K p 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 S K 1 0 0 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 9 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 7 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 5 2 3 5 0 0 1 3 0 1\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\u003eBrooks, Roy G.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","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":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the 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 above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 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 RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America 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 and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 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 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us 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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~    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_1761","title":"Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child 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, 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":["2004-01/2004-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","School districts","Little Rock School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","School integration","Students","Parents","Teachers","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child 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/1761"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["60 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, joint stipulation; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file reply and response to cross-appeal; District Court, motion; District Court, order; a situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District.    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOINT STIPULATION RECEIVED JAN G 200~ OFFIC~ OF DESEGREGA110N MON\\10R\\NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On December 23, 2003, the Pulaski County Special School District No. I (PCSSD) filed a motion seeking court approval for \"two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills High School.\" The Joshua Intervenors, having been sufficiently informed regarding capacity figures, school assignments, transfer practices, and the racial balance at Sylvan Hills High School which now exceeds 40% African American students, and the PCSSD seek prompt approval of the motion because of exigent necessity for the requested additional school facilities. These two parties hereby stipulate that the PCSSD request is meritorious and that it will not otherwise undermine existing desegregation and education obligations of the PCSSD. WHEREFORE, these parties respectfully request that the Court approve the PCS SD motion. M:,,Samuel Jones, III,,AR Bar No. 76060 Respectfully s~_pmitted,, / . C. ---,X'f-_/ ..  , \u0026lt;- \u0026lt;.:..-., I~ ~: / .:..' X,::. u ?'\\....A..,,..._. v I .. L---' v l-'-- '-  r( _,t__ _ Jo}:in W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / l_ .. / WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 (501) 376-9442 (Fax) Attorney for the Pulaski County Special Special School District JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Attorney for Joshua lntervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January 7, 2004, 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 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. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samu~I Jones Ill ( / -  -,_____ _/ 2 r~~ THE L~lITED STATES D1STPJ:CT C01JRT T\"' , _.._,..._\",T ~.--_..,....,..,-.._ \"..-, J _,.r' .\": -...'I'(\" t \u0026lt;\"' ,.t\\..::\u0026gt; .l L.l'\\.l 'I v.1..:, .l ~'--.l vr .a~\"\"r\\..::, i..iTTi.E ROCK DiV1SiQ7; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LO!H'NE JOSHUA, ET AL. Ki~\"'TP...EPJNE Kl\\qIGHT, ET .A .. L. ORDER Fu en ILL-U' 'I c:\" M I CTOl(\"\"T r.()URT eASTEi:tN 01s'rR1c, ARKANSAS JAN - 9 200~ 6y ---------;:;;c\"Ecprc~LE\"'RR,\u0026lt; PLAiNT.iFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Puiaski County Special Schooi District's Motion for Two Temporary Portable Building at Sylvan Hills School (Doc. No. 3826). No parties have Objected to the t'CSSD's motion, and their time for doing so has now expired. ln its motion, PCSSIJ requests authorization to lease two portable bmldings for the second semester and for the 2004-2005 school year at Sylvan .Hills High School. due to the unexpected increase m enrollment ct,:u-ing the current school year. PCSSD and the Joshua lntervenors have stipulated (Doc. !'To . 3828) that the request is meritorious a.~d ,.vill not underrr1ine eristing A t\"-,...,.. _ _ ,., ...__._: ,,.. _ ,.._,..J ...,,.:: ,,,..,.. .., ; __ .,.. t..1 ; __ ._ :...., _ .... ,,.. .\u0026amp;'-1., - D/'\"\"-C\"C,~ '-\"'--.:,\"-'!'S\"\"\"!S\"'UUJ.J. a.u.u. .... uu.\\..a\\.J.UJ.L UUHl!!::,aUU.iL,=:, U.L UJ.C ),. \\...,..JLH . ./. Because no parties have objected to the motion and based on the stipulation between PCSSD and the Joshua intervenors. the PCSSD's Motion for Two Temporary Portabie Building at Sylvan Hills School is GRANTED. .,......_ IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2004. , / / -~J~ . It I fl /4 r ~..--- _ ---f If {/f.,,1 / VIA.~ /IV IJ ~ UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON. JR. TO: DATE: JTNTTED ~T ATF.~ fl!~'T'R lf'\"f ( ,(ll l R'T' EASTJ!,RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris .Heller Sam Iones ~teve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier l1 nn tv1'o.-Qho 11 liK ., ..... t,. D-. -. - o +4-.o '- \"' \"''\"\"'-'-A),, J-''\"4.1. AA\"-''-'-\\,,, I__, () I L  ~ -../ Telephone: 501-604-5140 F:ix Nnrnher: S01-604 Sl 49 376-2147 3 76-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 6R2-2591 371-0!00 .\".l, .',~.., 10Af\\ J..  .T V There are 0ages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. -4 /} ,4 ~ . ~ , #' ,~L- -~7~,V-, 'II .~,,- 1 // Ottice of Judge Wm. R. Wi1s9)( Jr. U.S. District Court / 600 West Capitol. RoOI#23 Little Rock, Arkam a\" 72?0) ,~1att ~1orgaJl, LRSD La1vv Clerk: t;\" A'I r l\"\\ A :; \u0026lt;t A 1 JV J VV\"?~ J \"? .( I  I I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I I REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor SECOND UPDATE January 14, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor L... L... u u.,. J.  J. ,. WILL BOND cone \u0026amp; ~namcer11n BOND \u0026amp;. CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKS0t14\"Yl~LE, AAiW'iJSAS 72U76 501 J 882 - 9414 p.2 NEIL CHAMBERLIN January 22, 2004 TELEPHONE: (501) 982.9081 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans : Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in the abovereferenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger With Warmest Regards, Will Bond l.sc.hool district detach.ment.e1ghth circuic.appeal\\clerk.jan.22. 04 uu 11u ac wr1c:1mue r - 1 1 n l!:\u0026gt;Ul I 982 - 9414 m..TITED STATES COURT OF ~-.?PEALS ~OR TE:E XIGHTK CIR~ul~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT:tFF V. No. 03-3088 PULASKI COO?,.'TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRXCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERUm KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. APPELLBES INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ APPELLANTS MOTION POR BXTlfflSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY AND RESPONSB TO CROSS-APPEAL Come the Appellants , the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for their Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Their Reply Brief and Response to Cross-Appeal, state: 1. On or about December 23, 2003, Appellees filed a Response and Cross-Appeal to Appellants Brie. Appellant's Reply and Response are due January 22, 2004. 2. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' Reply and Response to Cross-Appeal is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel, Will Bond, is a State Representative elected to represent the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The Arkansas General Assembly is currently in special session. The special session began on December 8, 2003 and is still ongoing. It is the longest special session in history. Appellants' counsel has p.3 ouria.,. 1.,namcer11n l~Ul J ::H:lc - ::1414 been the lead sponsor on legiBlation during the session and nas been unable to complete the Reply and Response Brief. 3 . Although the Reply and Response will be very short, Mr. Bond requests an additional eight (8) days in which to file his brief. This would make the brief due on January 30, 2004 . Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 902-9081 Telefax (501) 982-94i4 By: Will Bond ~.R Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE r. Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing plea.ding by tJnit:ed States Mail I add.reseed to such attorney or party with suffici~l}.t prepaid postage to ensure rirst-class delivery this ,.Q.;2.fiiciay of January, 2004: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock. AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 Via Fax@ 376-9442 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 2 ...,c:311 L..L.. L..UV\"'T J,.V  J.\"'T cone \u0026amp; Lnamoer11n John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone {501)374-3758 (501) 982-9414 Via Fa..'X @ 374-4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring , n.,,.;,.....,.., 1\\T::iti ...... ,..,::,l Pl;1za 124 w. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Reck, ]).R 72201 Telephone 340-8285 Ti~ Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201- 2610 Telephone 692-2586 By: Via Fax@ 375- 1027 Via Fax@ 3 7 1 -0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340- 8282 Via Fax \u0026amp; 682 - 2591 Will Bond, AR Bar 95145 l.  chool di  trict det  chmnt . eigh~b circuit.appeal . .mo tion Lor exceru;ion.jan.22.04 3 p.S ...,-  ._._ ._.....,....., I .L U .L \"'T oursu\"' L.namoer11n lb: Ann Marshall From: Win Bond Fax: 371-0100 Pag- Including Coversheet 5 Dair. Jaooary 22. 2004 Re: Littte Roel\u0026lt; School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. The informatton contained In this tu nnsrnttal Is confldentlal attomey-dlent privileged information and Is iranded solely tor the uee of the lndlvldual or entity named as recipient. If this inauase its received by -one other than the :rn..r~ TiClpief'K, you are prohiblied from I ny dillumlnatioll, dielribution or copying d this communication eXC9PI to the add,.._ If this communication ha9 been nte8Mld by you In error, or If you arc not s1on1 al It. intend.d dilltrtbutlon, please notify lhe a~ced office at 1-aBa-2A5-1ffl. p. 1 . ,',--.- RECE\\\\JED FE.B :- l\\ 2004   :- \". .;  ' OFflCEOF .. ;,:  . OiSEGREGAl\\ON MOtUlOR\\MG : . ~::'\u0026gt;\u0026gt; -_. ,. .. . . .~ .... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT The court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities. Although the court's order is on appeal, counsel has sought to abide by the letter and spirit of the court's order. Counsel, however, brings to the court's attention an egregious situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District, who elected to attend a PCS SD school Clinton Elementary, with a request that the court assign the matter for inquiry and report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ( see Enclosure) Respectfully submitted, Jqhn W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway _ Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187(fax) J 0119,w . walker  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this 3rd day of February 2004 by placing copy in the United States mail postage prepaid. '!Ti Lj son., , Lee. ......I.., _ _ -J 01 _..o , o r_ \" TH+r i _u . :i o.,.. . s+ -u. olQ__.~,... ct ,.. ,c t_,~ rr l ____ \\_T\\ .. , 1' Y'iu q v-u...,.t I:. le..n\"- . Lee.. 1 .$ Lo U e- Q .tt_/ ~ ccni ... J ~ - \\.). t , 1..ul I I j  . J he, 1 s i n + h.s;., I' 1 ~ r a de_ . L1 l'L Fe h -- 1.J c. ,~_l:j J.., 1 .;:z L'G ~ Lee.s ie o c. he. r 5 en+ I-LUY\\. J1ome --l'=rum St \\rioo C  LL, , 'f h '-I\", c, S h:::,e s l)n. h..t. s -f-e e i: . +I er h c, n1 e I s {Y'\\ rs En\", s. On Feb ;J., 1 i. Luo s ~Lu n, n5 c-\"':'d C1 I S O + /,e., -it. rr, { l t. \"IC, 'tLVt..L LU Q S 30 . ft C) o-\\ u -FT l4 }, , s b u s eel -10~ 1o... mo, r o c_ CV.d Luc, \\ k_a cl .t,. ~ unu d, G ih 'fron r u c'.- +o ,;!(,;r\"'- V cu, e, u r -c n Lu NY\\ I S o w =\u0026lt;j S ore h e.- 10 cv::i f\\ c-d j-Qt e d ,.,J.!f J,.,v) ~ ,., 1,J ..__. li., R..Luu1,..__,c.,; h,V) ,nus e k 10t_n R.-LlfUo_; ~q L , , .,, \" \u0026lt;' f-,, ,. ,., ., A _.,  -.. .J1 1 ~, ~ 1 r U v\\.....,/u:_, ,.J , ) 1 c._ t'\\....L, '9 1 .. CJ,..'i..,l.J'--q Cu,~ h..t I:_ u1.tl dJ\"-T '1'Yll, v e.. h , s +e ct , rv e u1-,JJ cr1 P:icvv L~fJ Io, I K, J__ c_ u i L, cl ;' Fm S Cu1d ~'-) c Qnu__ +c, ~ r-ic 17v__, GLn d i: I\\.., ct_,l_.,, d cf- e. e. -i-o, d ~ . 171 e rns ice, s +r ':\\ \"'j -lo , b r , 'j :i)rn e., htQ:.t bacK I ruo 1--v, s 6~. J_ c,, i so ccruuctrd ~ L. Po V ~ -e... ,j e() t ~ -tu:, K. o  efo rt Cl.rd cl-10/1.1: d Truv:i :-r-Jn \\ s Lui -+k__ E ndan3-e (r, +1-u___ Lue\\ fo.r -e.,, o-f Cl ~Or(.  L lt\u0026lt;) o tor1...:i uc 't-e. d Sn-e I loo OU u. -u;---,. e,_, p t b' u;-,t- ~ - -, d cn~t- 1 ru__y 1yj CLA'l... t: to --t-a k...t__ ~--L ~ e..ro rt - j h ; S 1 S th_ -e_ kJo r- s t . ')~ of' . nuj L 1 fe., buc,.,u~ i T , S e e m._,s ,L : k.t., no o ~ l\u0026lt;.)a.rul: s +o do Q ~-lkc.,~ cu00Lct -th.vi . Cu-u.fuzl -ij ou er-eq S G .De--e c:...-t m-c -+o Som e 00.Ju who C.etf -r .s Q o Lct Lc) h.cL;t ~ o__,p_p-e1u1 cl +o n~ '5 i. x ...t.~UV\\__; o 1 cl o t\\. Fe 6 {)., _ :1 co ~ . RECEIVED FEB 1 o 2004 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FEB -6 1004 CORMACK, CLERK JAMES W  Mc oEP cLERK .B'f PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In their motion filed February 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 3832), Joshua Intervenors assert that \" [t]he court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities.\" I have no idea what order Joshua Intervenors are referring to. I do not believe that I have entered an order that would, in anyway, limit Joshua Intervenors' counsel's duty to represent his clients, or to take appropriate steps to address the \"egregious situation\" alleged in the February 3 motion. To the contrary, I would expect counsel to \"do the necessary\" with respect to clients. Accordingly, Joshua Intervenors' Motion (Doc. No. 3832) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ay ofFebruary, 2004. WM. R . WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866    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_1754","title":"Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-04/2003-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","School integration","African Americans--Education","Charter schools","Educational planning","Students","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1754"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, the Joshua intervenors' comments on the submission of page 148 ''evaluations''; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; Court of Appeals, brief of appellee; 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.     . ,:;-:- - b.BD ED -=-  u.f sM'rn1c;co,1,mr =-- !;/\\'fERN tHTRIQT ARN:\\1\\l~S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS APR 1 4 :og, WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-:C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . APR 1 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 14s \"Evaluations\" INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the \"[LRSD] Notice of Fil i ng Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph c of the Court's Compliance Remedy\" and the accompanying \"evaluations.\" This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Program Evaluation [at 150).\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students~ for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced ~1th new programs. [At 150) The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 addressed in part \"program evaluations on each of the programs identified in page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 170, 171) The court discussed the completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, 2003, after their approval by the LRSD school board. [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [ At 170] These materials are to be submitted on or before March 15, 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to govern the LRSD's exiting court supervision. Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in Sec. 2.7.1, .it. must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: Cal demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under sec. 2.1 in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; ... \" [At 110) The LRSD \"Notice of Filing\" describes the LRSD' s plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluation[s]\" as follows: The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. [Exhibit A at SJ Joshua Intervenors have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2 show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate} that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\" -- it will have to be by a future submission. In general, the documents submitted were either not evaluations, or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy (Vol. 1-2] 1 Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD I've read.\" [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses .... \" [l.s;l.] Dr. Ross' critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" (At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (PI) index.\" [At 3 J \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between Band NB students .. The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4J \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do .Il.Q.t. have low ceilings -- Writing Vocabulary and ORA -- the Growth Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction (e.g., seep. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places. 11 [At 5) \"The present data are 1 This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled \"Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel _ang Mrs , Marsha 11 of ODM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 2 s , 2 o o 2 . 3 I I I I I I I I I I II suggestive of definite early progress made by LRSD in improving - All students' literacy performance. There are also indicators of some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very low ceiling levels, the overall evidence is weaker than this report conveys. There is no reason to reduce the credibility of the findings by presenting them with such an obvious positive bias.\" [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that examine implementation quality and impacts on the school and the classroom.\" [At 8] charter school [Vol. 1-2] \"Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American.\" [Vol. 1-2 at l; Dr. Lesley) Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program [Vol. 1-2) - The \"evaluation\" documents produced by the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain neither a detailed description of the program implemented at Southwest Middle School, nor student achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] Collaborative Action Plan [Vol. 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD' s short-term ( one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance.\" [Vol. 1-2 at 528; Dr. Lesley) 4 ..... Extended Year schools [Vol. vol. 4J \"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.\" (Exh. Bat S: Dr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of_ the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732; Dr. Lesley: see also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Implementation [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] 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.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870; Dr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911; Youth Policy Research 5 I \\ . Group, Inc. ) ~lementary _summer school [Vol. 3] There is a lack of II implementation data to describe the  program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" (Eh.Bat 3; Dr. Ross] \"Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered, how and when it was del i vered, and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. control group or norms \" [Vol. Education and Management Associates, Inc.] HIPPY [Vol. 3 J at--] \"No adequate at -- ] [ By Quality \"A limitation of the study, wh i ch unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used.\" [Eh . Bat 4; Dr. Ross] \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554; Dr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed .... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [Vol. J at 1567; Dr. Ross] 6 campus Leadership Teams [Vol. 3] \" 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 representatives of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools.\" [Eh. Bat 5; Dr. Ross) \"These surveys were not intended to be a program evaluation., although they were mistakenly characterized as such in the District's compliance report to the court. No student performance data were collected, and, therefore, no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the Campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in improved academic achievement for any students, nor specifically for African American students.\" [Vol. 3 at 1256; Dr. Lesley] \"There was no formal evaluation of CLT by the LRSD.\" [Vol. 3 at 1259; Dr.. RossJ Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 4) \"Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program ( 8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607; Dr. Lesley; see also at 1635 (inadequate description of treatment provided students in program; 7 Dr. Ross)] onward to Excellence (Vol. 3) The program \"was never fornally achievement data reports sent by the evaluated, except for principal to ADE.\" As \"implementation data are lacking,\" \"if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause.\" [Eh.Bat 4; Dr. Ross) \"In view of these factors, there is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217; Dr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] \"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.\" [Eh.Bat Jr Dr. Ross] There is \"(i]nsufficient description of the program and its implementation.\" There is a \"[l)ack of pre-program (pretest) data for judging change following program completion.\" \"No examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity) . 11 [Vol.3 at 1542: Dr. Ross) 8 conclusion The need for high quality evaluations, if the LRSD is to exit court supervision, is clear. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Attorney at Law J n John P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501.-663-9900 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadilf.: been mailed, postage pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this .-~ (i._ day of ,t, , fJ , ?oc:S,  ~ ~ ?fa ~~~ ohnw.Wall\u0026lt;er .1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Assistant Attorney General Colette D. Honorable left state employment effective April 10, 2003. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents Defendants and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record . .l By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier 2 --- ..... . .)_ RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Mr. M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.inley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 April 24, 2003 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.us Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find a copy of Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, Notice of Filing and ADE's Project Management Tool sent for filing in the above-referenced matter. MAH/jle Very truly yours, ~.){ . MARK A. HAG~R Assistant Attom~::ral 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Cc: Mr. Ray Simon D. Scott Smith Mr. Louis Ferren Ms. Charity Smith .l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR Z 5 1003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG\"i\\OM MOMliORlMG 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 March 2003. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education #94127 .l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ID Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagerne'e 2 .l IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of -Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Uttfe Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna - ane Rebick Uttfe Rock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capilol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 May 30, 2003 MAY 3 1 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION 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 the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2003. Respectfully Submitted, j~1t~~ Scott Smith, 251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 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 May 31, 2003 !ii!ii~h.tii\\ii~,i~miiii%~iliti!!1f.1,a11gy1~t;~r'i\u0026amp;~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOS. 02-3867 AND 03-1147 RECEIVED - '/ /rJ d - (} It 'v?:h d, JUN0 1 8 2003 - ., tJZ l l'VI OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. !JNIUO!INOW N0l!V93H93S3a :10 3~1:1:10 Appellants EOOZ 8 1 Nnr v. 03Al3~3H LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRlEF OF APPELLEE CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellee SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises out of the interdistrict desegregation case filed in 1982 by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., (\"Joshua\") intervened during the remedy phase after a liability finding in favor of the LRSD against all of the defendants. In 1998, the LRSD and Joshua agreed to anew desegregation plan for the LRSD, lmown as the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan entitled the LRSD to a declaration of unitary status if it substantially complied with the plan and no party objected. The - Revised Plan provided that any party objecting would bear the burden of proof. Joshua objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. Hearings were held on Joshua's objections. The district court found that the LRSD had substantially complied with all but one section of the Revised Plan and granted the LRSD partial unitary status. Joshua then moved to disqualify the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. based on 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). That motion was denied. Joshua appeals the district court's grant of partial unitary status and denial of the motion to disqualify. The LRSD respectfully requests at least thirty minutes of oral argument due to length and complexity of the proceedings below and the substantial public interest in this case. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Mananna  eRebick ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 http:/ larkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED June 30, 2003 JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFFICE OF Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (} r} lJL~ ~~L Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2003. Respectfully Submitted, 9-\u0026gt;~vtc LtiA b f v,) Scott Smith, #92251 7 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~~ ;VED each of the followmg: tiC\\., Cl Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 - 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 l!i.iii~ll~1111.~ili!lliil~lf~ili!iii!lrs.itiwct:.lli~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1755","title":"Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Students","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj\"  } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. \"-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul\"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLT\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t\u0026lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 \"\"  EXHIBIT I A B. C. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with  2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?\". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be \"completed\" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- ---  -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- -  r  -i\"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ .,  - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.\u0026lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f\u0026lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE\u0026lt; i -- -- ---  , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_  -  j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02   II II II  II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II  II II -- -- \\ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - -     I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I  I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I  I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200  Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II  I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - \u0026amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003  :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I  I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r  \" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955  (\u0026lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r\u0026lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF  --='~0/~BY  ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1790","title":"Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Middle schools","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Finance","Students","School facilities","Educational planning","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1790"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion of October 22, 2002, for approval of middle school site; District Court, plaintiff's response to the Court's letter regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) statement in support of middle school in Maumelle; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR .  TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA SI EVERS HARRIS ISAAC A . SCOTT, JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SU ITE 2300 GORDON S. RATHER , JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER , JR. CHARLESL . SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj . com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROb6R D. ROWE Writ er ' s Direct Dial No . 501 -212 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj . com JOHN D . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 4, 2003 J, MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HAN COCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLIN GS WI LLIAM STUART JACK SON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LAN CAST ER JUDY ROB INSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M . MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY  M . SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALL EN CIIRI STIN E J. DA l.i (jllEK T , rt1 I\u0026gt;  MI CHELLE M KA F.MMER LIN(.; ERIKA ROS S SCOTT ANDREW I RB Y MICHELLE HARGI S DILLARD PATRICK 0 . WILSON  lii.:cmsr:d co pl7f,tic:t: ht:10~ tht: Unirt:d Stares Patt:nt and Trad~marJ.: O!1h-r: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No. : 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: In response to the Court's letter of January 28 , 2003 , I enclose a courtesy copy of the supplement to PCSSD motion of October 22, 2002 for approval of middle school site. The original has been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW ):\u0026gt;ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION OF OCTOBER 22, 2002 FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCS SD for: its supplement to motion, states: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has posed certain questions to the parties in this case regarding issues associated with the proposed new middle school. The numbered paragraphs set forth below correspond to the Court's letter of January 28, 2003. At the outset, it is instructive to note that what the District's desegregation plan states with respect to a middle school in Maumelle is simply that: An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built. Exhibit A reflects updated student population data gleaned both from census data and enrollment record. 395608-vl 1. As a starting point, it should be recalled that the M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in the receiving district at the next organizational level, particularly when interdistrict schools are available to them. Accordingly, as explained in its October motion, the PCSSD looks first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. 79 of those students currently attend Oak Grove Junior High, a rather significant number given that the new middle school was - conceived to replace the overcrowded Oak Grove facility which offers no special inducements for interdistrict transfer. It should also be noted that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton lnterdistrict School through the 5th grade. The seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school are not limited to Little Rock students but include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. For instance, of the 79 students referred to in Paragraph 1, 26 of those students are from North Little Rock. Further, the principal junior high magnet school in Little Rock, Mann, is both being rebuilt and historically has never had sufficient room to house all Little Rock black students seeking education at a magnet junior high or middle school. 395608-vl 2 2. Both. Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs, Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Obviously, since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle - middle school. 3. Please see response to question no. 2. Also, efforts will be made to recruit M-to- M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7m grade). Parents of 4m, sm, and 6m grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4m and 5m grade Clinton M-to-M students, and 7m grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations. Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process 395608-vl 3 at the proposed middle school. Parents of 4 m and 5m grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the proposed middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementaries), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. Yes. 6. Yes. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will be asked to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, evaluating whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will essentially follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to Judge Wright with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle 395608-vl 4 school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. It had previously approved the conversion of the Jacksonville Junior High Schools to middle schools. By 2003-2004, the PCSSD will be in its 5th year of operating middle schools and Maumelle would be the last to be implemented. 395608-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ue~ Jones III (76060) A~neys for Pulaski Cou~ S ool Districy - ------- 5 pecial CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 4, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 395608-vl 6 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West -Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 CENSUS DATA FOR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED CRYSTAL HILL/MAUMELLE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2004-2005 The U.S. Census Bureau reported **2,246 children between the ages of 4 to 18 years old residing in the Maumelle Urban Cluster area for the year 2000. Data for school aged children ** 11 to 15 was reported at 749 for the same year. Age groupings **4 to 15 were listed at 1,880. Refer to Table 1 for individual age numbers. Table 1: Single Age Numbers for Maumelle Urban Cluster 2000 Census 4 156 5 142 6 151 7 161 8 169 9 175 10 177 11 141 12 166 13 139 14 150 15 153 16 132 17 133 18 101 EXHIBIT A Based on the 2002-2003 first quarter PCSSD enrollment figures ***1,643 elem~ntary students - attend PCSSD schools in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area. This total is comprised of ***581 (34%) elementary age black students and ***1062 (66%) white students. The projected rate of enrollment growth for the proposed Crystal Hill/Maumelle area middle school for 2004-2005 is estimated to be ***662 students (Based on 2000 U.S. Census of *4.6% growth projections). Tables 2, 3 and 4 depict middle school growth projections . . Table 2: 6th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 66 34 126 66 192 2003-2004 85 34 162 66 247 2004-2005 85 44 109 56 194 Table 3: 7th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 57 41 81 59 138 2003-2004 69 34 132 66 201 2004-2005 89 34 169 34 258 Table 4: 8th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students 2002-2003 38 31 2003-2004 60 49 2004-2005 72 34 Sources: *Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Advancement **U.S. Census Bureau Profile of Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic Area: Maumelle, AR Urban Cluster ***First Quarter 2002-2003 Student Enrollment Pulaski County Special School District 83 85 138 Percent Total 69 121 59 145 69 210 IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECE FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S LETTER REGARDING PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby responds in tum to each numbered question in the Court's letter of January 28, 2003 regarding the PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site: Question: Is interest in M-to-M transfers within LRSD's African-American communities sufficient to justify reserving a certain number of seats for M-to-M students at the Maumelle school? How do LRSD and PCS SD propose to ascertain that level of interest? 1. Yes. The LRSD agrees with PCS SD that it is reasonable to judge the prospective interest of its students in transferring to a new Maumelle Middle School based on the number of LRSD students currently attending the elementary schools that will feed the new Maumelle Middle School, the number of those students that traditionally continue in the PCS SD system following elementary school and attend Oak Grove Junior High and the number ofLRSD students who choose for the first time to transfer to the PCSSD for junior high/middle school. Question: Will PCSSD, LRSD, or both school districts assume responsibility for student recruitment? 2. Both. The LRSD has traditionally initiated most M-to-M transfers of LRSD students to the PCSSD. Once they are in the PCSSD system, the PCSSD has assumed responsibility for keeping them as they move to the next organizational level. The LRSD does - not intend to in any way to guarantee to fill any number of seats reserved for M-to-M transfers by the PCSSD. Question: What are the details of and timeline for the recruitment plan? 3. LRSD students are provided information annually about M-to-M transfer opportunities. The LRSD's two parent recruiters provide parents with their M-to-M options when LRSD parents are seeking information at the LRSD's Student Registration Office. They may also take LRSD parents on tours of PCS SD schools eligible to accept an M-to-M transfer. Question: What persons and resources will be assigned to M-to-M recruitment? 4. See Response to Question No. 3. The LRSD expends these resources promoting M-to-M transfers by LRSD students even though the \"Pooling Agreement\" (Settlement Agreement, Section II, paragraph 0) as interpreted by the District Court creates a financial disincentive for the LRSD to undertake these activities. Question: Will LRSD give PCS SD recruiters full access to students and parents through - LRSD schools? 5. Yes. Question: Will transportation provided by LRSD be adequate to facilitate the transfer of students? 6. Yes, for as long as it is paid for by the State of Arkansas. Question: What unique, attractive programs will PCSSD put in place at the Maumelle school to attract M-to-M students from LRSD? 7. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. Question: What steps will PCSSD take to ensure that the Maumelle school reflects the \"middle school concept\" in terms of facility design, academic programs, and staffing? 8. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. 2 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 6 -----.. lf2e__ _:::\u0026gt; / // BY: ' . ___ .. . ---~  / ChristopherHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on February 4, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 ------- ~ ~ / / ./ -\u0026gt; '/ __. ,. t Af4i --. -~ Christophe~ 3 r ~' 'f/.1 rv- I\"' ! 1  , ,::-.) A31(-,f;_'. ht.j !J, '' I-, ~..:. 'J , .. ; r A, .\".i''r Fr:: u \u0026lt;Iv-JV\u0026lt;/.\\ -~-P,. 0 \"' s .1 .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU[ 1M.s vv  \"' i00J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS r.___ 1 \"-CO/  WESTERN DIVISION - - - ---~ _. ~ r::.i.:??:,: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RE\u0026amp;itW=ED .:,.:-:-:.~, . FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL IN MAUMELLE The North Little Rock School District has a significant number of African-American students attending school in the Pulaski County School District, particularly at the Oak Grove Junior and Senior High Schools. It is our understanding that, upon completion of a middle school in Maumelle, the Oak Grove facility will be reconfigured as a grade 9 - 12 high school and that the middle school will replace the remaining grades currently in the Oak Grove Junior High School. The creation of a middle school in Maumelle will extend the educational opportunities and choices presently available to the North Little Rock School District African-American children through majority-to-minority transfers. Past experience has shown that a new facility is a substantial factor in attracting students. We would expect this to hold true in this instance as well. Therefore, the North Little Rock School District believes the construction of a new middle school in Maumelle would enhance the attractiveness of the PCSSD District attractive to North Little Rock School District African American students. By: -, -ste en W. Jones 3400 TCBY Towe\"'- 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served on all counsel of record as listed below this 4th day of February, 2003 Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 2 - Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 I \\North Linlc Rock School Oistric1 0001\\0cscgrcgation Mauers 0002\\PLEADING\\NLRSD S1a~m:111 or Suppon :-..11ddlc School r.. taunidlc 02 03 03 wpd C, ; ~ ILCt.,. ~ -\u0026lt; ...,.,._ /J.A..._ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S MOTION RE PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL The PCS SD for its motion, states: RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is periodically plagued with standing water. The PCSSD believes that this problem can be remedied during the summer when school is out. 2. In the meantime, the PCSSD desires permission to lease a portable building for use as a temporary band room until the end of the current school year. 3. The PCS SD does not believe there is actually anything within the four comers of Plan 2000 requiring that this matter be presented to the Court. However, under the predecessor plan, the PCSSD pledged to eliminate portable buildings and to replace them with permanent construction. It did so. 4. Accordingly, lest any person question the current motives of the PCSSD, it seeks an order of this Court granting it permission to lease a portable building for use as a 397582-v1 band room until the end of this school year. Such a lease will not constitute an expansion of the capacity of Sylvan Hills Middle School. 5. Personnel from the PCS SD have made contact with representatives of the other parties in this case and undersigned counsel is therefore authorized to state that no party has voiced an objection to the relief sought in this motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an order granting it permission to lease a portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School for use as a temporary band room until the conclusion of the current school year and for all proper relief. 397582-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 12, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 397582-vl Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 M.Samu~~( 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL  DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2003 DESEGRE GjjfbiE OF MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua resolved this matter with school district officials on or about February 10, 2003 . Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors do not oppose the Motion of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50 58 50 CERTIFI I do hereby state that a copy oft record on this24th day of February, 2003 . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -.1 .::..:,_' -::- - - .. -~ ~S.:--- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIF1~-=-=--~-~-------.:::::-~:'\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions C of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2003 . ~~-t:~;~~itn~ JG~~~;~~-~-;::~~~t~bjbrti1,~t,i;~gr~ri!r J8;fig ~~fcui~tedu,e B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED MAR - 3 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management - Tool for February 2003. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on February 27, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~z Colette D. Honorable 2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1736","title":"District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School enrollment","School districts","Student activities","Students","Parents","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1736"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, five orders; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT u.foilfm~cPuRT -\"'EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAY 0 7 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff;-- vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER ~~M~~ No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED MAY -8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua lntervenors have moved for a second extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For cause, Joshua Intervenors state that they are in settlement talks with LRSD on the issue ofLRSD's unitary status, and that \"additional time is needed to continue these discussions.\" Although Joshua's counsel has asked to extend the response time until May 20, 2002, I take judicial notice of the fact that he is a candidate for the Arkansas Senate; and the primary election is on Tuesday, May 21 , 2002. Accordingly, I am granting Joshua Intervenors an extension until and including May 30, 2002. I do note that the chances of another extension are remote, at best. DATED this ( tff day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE w~/iULE ss ANotoR~7F9R CP ON ~(}y BY ~ ~ 1 7 595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN D1STRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. l , et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , lntervenors, 4:82cv00866 RECEIVED MAY - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG ORDER The parties are notified that Judge J. Thomas Ray is the U. S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Dated this 6th day of May, 2002 . . /11:L ' ------ JY ry{, ~ . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ~CP ON -0.-1 f?\"\"r: BY , c.,,,,,. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 596 A072A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT CO_B~J~Jk1 ~1?ouRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ER~l DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAY 9 2082 LITTLE ROCKS,CHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VY. IVIT\\L~n 1V1ALK., CLE.RK. B . \\J y .:OT A ~ --- y. - - Ut:t''.Ct:tKK V. No. 4-:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On January 3, 2002, I was assigned this twenty-year-old action, which over the years has come to be known in this District simply as \"the school case\" (docket entry #3570). Pleadings in the case now occupy hundreds of feet of files in the District Court Clerk's office, and the magnitude of the appeals in the case has led the Eighth Circuit to adopt a policy of rotating the case to a new appeal panel every five years. Thus, by necessity, the decisions I make will be built on the footings and foundations poured by other District Court and Appellate Court Judges--their decisions have shaped the current contours of the case. On March 15, 2001, approximately nine months before I inherited this case, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a pleading which could result in a watershed ruling--a Request for Scheduling Order and attached Compliance Report ( docket entry #3410) aimed at obtaining \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" Id. Subsequently, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed an Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3447) in which they challenge the LRSD's contention that it is entitled to A072A a judicial declaration that it has achieved overall unitary status. On January 25, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry#357 l) referring the issue of unitary status to a mediator. In doing so, it was my understanding that the LRSD and Joshua both had requested mediation as a means of promptly, efficiently, and finally resolving that issue. Over ninety days have now elapsed, with no report that progress has been made through mediation. I was somewhat sanguine, but the lapse of time with no report of progress has dampened my optimism. 1 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after filing its Compliance Report, the LRSD filed a Motion for an lrnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket entry #3580) and supporting Memorandum Brief (docket entry #3581). On May 6, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry #3595) granting Joshua's request for an extension of time and allowing them until and including May 30, 2002, to file their Response. The recent actions of the parties, in placing the issue of unitary status back before me, appears to be a clear signal that mediation is not succeeding and that settlement negotiations have stalled. Therefore, the Court intends to decide, soon, the issue of unitary status raised in the LRSD's March 15 Motion. Inheriting the case at this point (I hope its shadow is falling far to the east) has required me to review an enormous amount of material just to try to determine where we are.2 Although 1On April 18, 2002, Joshua filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #3592) that alludes to the parties having engaged in \"settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status.\" I have heard nothing further from the parties regarding these settlement discussions. It is most unlikely that any future requests for extensions will be granted because of \"settlement discussions.\" 2The fields of education and \"school litigation\" also have a jargon of their own which a neophyte must attempt to absorb. -2- A072A IRP.vR/~ it may be old hat to the parties, I believe it will be helpful for me to set out in some detail where I find we are and, just as importantly, where I intend to go. I. Where I Find We Are On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the LRSD's January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). On April 10, 1998, the Court entered an Order ( docket entry #3144) approving the Revised Plan. Section 11 of the Revised Plan specifically describes the procedure the LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status At the conclusion of the 2000-0 I school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 , indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. On March 15, 200 l , the LRSD filed the required \"Compliance Report\" ( docket entry #3410),3 which describes section by section the LRSD's alleged \"substantial compliance'\"' with each provision of the Revised Plan. The Court entered an Order (docket entry #3414) establishing May 18, 2001, as the 3 Although not required by the Revised Plan, on March 15, 2000, the LRSD filed an Interim Compliance Report (docket entry #3356). 4 The Revised Plan does not define what \"substantial compliance\" means, but, as Professor McCormick teaches us, it takes \"a skillful definer to make it plainer by multiplication of words   the explanations themselves often need more explanation than the term explained . .. . \" 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 341, p. 430 (5th ed. 1999). -3- A07?A --- deadline for challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report. Subsequently, Joshua moved three times for extensions of that deadline ( docket entries #3415, #3429, and #3443). Finally, the Court entered an Order (docket entry#3445) establishing June 25, 2001, as the final deadline for Joshua to file their Response to the LRSD's Compliance Report.5 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to the LRSD 's Compliance Report ( docket entry #3447). In this Opposition, Joshua argues that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with various specifically enumerated sections of the Compliance Report and describes the nature of the LRSD's noncompliance under each of those sections. Importantly, Section 11 of the Revised Plan explicitly provides that the \"challenging party'' has the burden of proving that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Counsel for Joshua has acknowledged on the record that the Court has \"given us and by agreement we accept the burden of proof' ( docket entry #3464, transcript of July 9, 2001 scheduling conference, p. 26, lines 14-17).6 Almost immediately after Joshua filed their Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report, the Court began a series of telephone conferences with counsel (docket entries #3348 and #3349) to establish a schedule for conducting evidentiary hearings on Joshua's challenges to the Compliance Report. During the June 29, 2001 telephone conference, the Court set aside July 5 5During a telephone conference on June 29, 2001, the Court described in some detail the circumstances surrounding the three extensions of this filing deadline ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, pp. 24-25). 61ndependent of this judicial admission, the Court specifically ruled that, under the plain language of Section 11 of the Revised Plan, it was agreed that any party, such as Joshua, who challenges the LRSD' s compliance will bear the burden of proof ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, p. 26, lines 11 -21). -4- A072A (Rev.8/82) and 6 and August 1 and 2 to hear evidence from Joshua regarding its challenges to the LRSD's \"substantial compliance\" with the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3461 at p. 25, lines 22-25, and p. 26, lines 1-9). The Court also made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence ( docket entry #3461, pp. 54-55). Because Joshua has the burden of proof, the Court allowed them to put on their case first. On July 5 and 6, 2001 , Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services (docket entry #3462, transcript of July 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing and docket entry #3463, transcript ofJuly 6, 2001 evidentiaryhearing at pp. 274-340) and Dr. Les Carnine, the former Superintendent of the LRSD (docket entry #3463, transcript of July 6, 2001 evidentiary hearing). During his cross-examination7 of these two witnesses, counsel for Joshua sought to elicit testimony proving that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with three specific obligations under the Revised Plan: (1) \"Good faith\" implementation of the policies, programs, and procedures described in the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1. l ); (2) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3-5.3.5, 5.4, 5.6.1, and 2.7.1); and (3) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures regarding various aspects of student discipline (sections 2.5 and 2.5.1- 2.5.4). After taking the first two days of testimony, the Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 7This technically was \"direct examination,\" but since the witnesses were associated with an adverse party, it was, in effect, cross-examination. -5- AO 72A 200 I, to schedule the remaining days necessary to complete the evidentiary hearing on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3464, transcript of scheduling conference held on July 9, 2001). Counsel for Joshua, in response to questions from the Court, stated that he believed the LRSD 's three most serious areas of non-compliance under the Revised Plan were failing to remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; continuing a policy of disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions; and failing, in good faith, to properly implement the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 26- 29). With the agreement of counsel, the Court set aside August 1 and 2 and November 19 and 20 to complete the evidentiary record on these three discrete issues ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 45- 46, 51-52, and 60-61 ). In formulating this schedule, the Court indicated that it would hear six hours of testimony on August 1, November 19, and November 20, and three hours of testimony on August 2. The Court ruled that these twenty-one hours of anticipated testimony would be divided equally between Joshua and the LRSD, so that each side would be allowed ten and onehalf hours to put on their respective cases on the issues of good faith, student achievement, and student discipline (docket entry #3464 at pp. 62-64). Finally, at the close of the July 9 scheduling conference, the Court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel, that makes it clear everyone knew and understood the three issues that would be tried to conclusion during the hearings on August 1-2 and November 19-20: MR. HELLER: But I just want to be sure we have heard Mr. Walker's case before we present ours. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. In other words, and these will be discrete issues, and I say they are discrete. Discipline and achievement, and I agree that there is some linkage there between the two. But those things, achievement particularly, is what is bothering me. -6- A072A (Acn,A / R'J\\ And discipline, maybe Mr. Walker can make me think that discipline ought to be bothering me too, and I guess it is to an extent because of the way the District has presented it. But still, there is some improvement there. MR.WALKER: Here is the other thing. Throughout this whole thing, the concept of good faith is present, and I don't th.ink we are going to have separate sections where we present good faith evidence. Part of what would be presented, as we are presented with Dr. Carnine and Mr. Babbs, is evidence to show that they had no intention of doing what they said they were going to do, and they really did not do it. So, that will be addressing good faith. THE COURT: Well, of course, you are free to do that. I have personally observed that Little Rock, I think, has been much, much better in recent years than it was when I first got the case .... (Docket entry #3464, p. 65, lines 16-25, and p. 66, lines 1-23.) In the August 1, 2001 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua called and examined Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of the LRSD, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction ( docket entry #3493). At the beginning of the August 2 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua re-examined Dr. Mitchell, and called and examined Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent responsible for handling discipline in alternative education settings, and James Washington, the ombudsperson for the LRSD ( docket entry #3494). During his examination of these four witnesses, counsel for Joshua again sought to elicit testimony regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations related to good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; and to eliminate the disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions. At the conclusion of the August 2 hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had -7- AO 72A used eight of his allotted ten and one-half hours ohime. The Court made it clear that counsel for Joshua could elect to rest his case and use the remaining two and one-half hours to cross-examine witnesses called by the LRSD or he could forego cross-examination and continue to call witnesses. Joshua's counsel indicated that, after he called a few \"brief' witnesses at the beginning of the November 19 hearing, he intended to rest his case and reserve his remaining time for cross-examination (docket entry #3494, pp. 950-954). At the beginning of the November 19 evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had decided to rest his case on the issues of the LRSD's good faith compliance with implementation of the Revised Plan, the implementation of programs and policies designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, and student discipline (docket entry #3558 at pp. 14-15). After the Court denied its Motion for Directed Verdict on those issues, the LRSD proceeded to call three witnesses: James Washington, Dr. Linda Watson, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their respective direct and crossexaminations of Mr. Washington and Dr. Watson on November 19. However, counsel for the LRSD was not able to complete his direct examination of Dr. Lesley (docket entry #3558). On November 20, counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their direct and crossexaminations of Dr. Lesley. After counsel for Joshua concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Lesley, he sought to call several \"rebuttal witnesses\" in what he estimated to be his remaining \"25 or so minutes\" of the original ten and one-half hours of time (docket entry #3559, p. 573). Counsel for the LRSD objected and suggested that \"the time left for Mr. Walker is just about zero\" (docket entry #3559, p. 573). -8- A072A The Court resolved this dispute by making the following unequivocal ruling: THE COURT: But I will tell you what I will do, I will give you [Mr. Walker] twenty-five more minutes. Now that's it. (Docket entry #3559 at p. 575, lines 21-23; emphasis added.) Although counsel for Joshua urged the Court to \"keep an open mind on aJ~owing Joshua more time,\" the Court refused to reconsider its ruling. The Court also made it clear that, if counsel for Joshua intended to call members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") as rebuttal witnesses, their testimony would count against his remaining twenty-five minutes of time (docket entry #3559 at p. 583, lines 9- 12). Thus, at the conclusion of the November20 evidentiary hearing, six days of testimony and hundreds of exhibits had been introduced in connection with what Joshua identified as their three strongest arguments against declaring the LRSD unitary: ( 1) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the \"good faith\" obligations contained in the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; and (3) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Furthermore, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD had both rested their cases on these three issues, and all that remained was for Joshua's counsel to use his remaining \"twenty-five minutes\" to call rebuttal witnesses.8 On December 11, 2001, the Court conducted a scheduling hearing to discuss issues and 8Counsel for Joshua indicated that these rebuttal witnesses might include the staff of ODM, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Roberts. -9- AO 7'?A witnesses that would be presented during a five-day evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28 (docket entry #3597). At the beginning of the hearing, the Court noted that Joshua had twenty-five minutes of\"true rebuttal\" testimony that remained to be heard on the three discrete issues which had been tried to conclusion during the six previous days of hearings (docket entry #3597 at p. 5). The Court requested that counsel for Joshua identify the issues and witnesses he intended to cover during the upcoming five-day evidentiary hearing. Counsel for Joshua identified the following areas of the Revised Plan which he intended to attack to prove the LRSD was not in substantial compliance: ( 1) extracurricular activities; (2) advanced placement courses; (3) guidance and counseling; (4) the student assignment plan; (5) no middle school evaluation; (6) the Cook School closing; (7) housing desegregation; (8) interdistrict schools and monitoring student recruitment; (9) staffing and funding incentive schools; (10) alternative education; (11) compliance standards; ( 12) desegregation plan modification; and ( 13) the academic achievement gap ( docket entry #3597 at pp. 6-19). Counsel for Joshua estimated it would take three full weeks to put on his case regarding these issues ( docket entry #3597 at p. 19). LRSD's counsel strenuously objected to Joshua expanding their attack on the LRSD's substantial compliance to include essentially every section of the Revised Plan. First, counsel noted that: (a) section 8.2 of the Revised Plan sets forth a detailed procedure for raising compliance issues; and (b) Joshua had failed to utilize that procedure to raise any of the foregoing compliance issues before filing their June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. Similarly, counsel noted that Joshua had never raised any objection to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 (docket entry #3597 at pp. 21-23). -10- AO 72A /Rev.8/82\\ Second, counsel noted that Joshua was now raising challenges to the LRSD's substantial compliance with sections 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.3--provisions of the Revised Plan that were not challenged in Joshua's June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3597 at p. 23). Finally, counsel stated his much different understanding of the purpose for the December 11 scheduling hearing: I thought the purpose of what we were going to do today was to narrow the issues; get this down to some very specific issues, talk about what specific evidence was going to be needed to litigate those issues, and then set some very limited time frames to get the case on a track where the Court and the parties can fulfill their responsibility to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. (Docket entry #3597 at p. 24). In resolving this contentious dispute between counsel regarding the scope of the issues that remained on the question of unitary status, the Court first noted that counsel for Joshua had already presented his strongest evidence on student achievement and student discipline, the \"areas of [the LRSD's] compliance [with the Revised Plan] that he [counsel for Joshua] thought were weakest.\" Next, the Court identified four remaining issues related to unitary status that Joshua would be allowed to cover during the hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) guidance counseling; (3) extracurricular activities; and ( 4) the LRSD's overall obligation of good faith under the Revised Plan (docket entry #3598 at pp. 31- 32).9 The Court went on to explicitly describe how it intended to conduct the final five days of 9The Court concluded that advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities were issues closely related to the issue of improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, the Court indicated that Joshua would be allowed to present evidence on student achievement but only for the limited purpose of explaining how the LRSD's policies, programs, and procedures regarding advanced placement courses, -11- AO 72A ,n .... . . n ,n,..,\\ evidentiary hearings: THE COURT: But this is what I would like to do. Instead of giving you three weeks, I would like to, which I don't have, by the way, what I would like to do is give careful attention to achievement, guidance and counseling, and related matters such as advanced placement and extracurricular the week ofJanuary 28th . Again, I think good faith is always an issue and you can always bring that up. But I would like to confine vour focus to those matters and then, I would like to make a ruling, I would like to have everything on those matters submitted to the Court, so that I can make a ruling with respect to them. And if necessary, give the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to give us further guidance. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would just prefer that. And I think that that would be something the District would like. It might bring this matter to closure more quickly, one way or the other. (Docket entry #3597 at pp. 36-37; emphasis added). II. Where We Go From Here Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD 's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 1 For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. This means I must now address only two issues still hanging fire. guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. 'From my review of the transcripts, I hardly see why it should take five days for the additional evidence (two days would seem to be time aplenty), but Judge Wright has dealt with this case for a long time, and I will defer to her call. -12- A072A /Oou 0 / Ct ? \\ First, at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001 hearing, Judge Wright allowed Joshua twenty-five minutes to put on \"true rebuttal\" testimony relevant to three discrete issues: ( 1) the LRSD's good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to insure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Having never been one to place too fine a point on time-keeping, I will allow Joshua thirty full minutes to present \"true rebuttal\" testimony directed at these three precise issues. After this brief rebuttal testimony has been received, the record will be closed on the issue of the LRSD's substantial compliance with those sections of the Revised Plan related to the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 3.4, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.2. 1, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2, 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3, 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3, 5.3.1-5 .3.5, 5.4, and 5.6.1) and student discipline (sections 2.5, 2.5 .1-2.5.4). As early as practical in June, I intend to schedule a short evidentiary hearing to allow counsel for Joshua to present this \"true rebuttal\" testimony. I would also welcome a stipulation or other arrangement that would allow this extremely brief and limited rebuttal evidence to go into the record, without the need for a formal hearing. Second, I need to establish the basic ground rules for the final evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the LRSD has achieved unitary status. Before beginning the six days of evidentiary hearings last year on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's request for unitary status, Joshua's counsel agreed to arrange his evidence so that he presented his strongest arguments against unitary status first. Thus, I must conclude that the record now contains all of Joshua's strongest evidence ofLRSD's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations under -13- I I AO 72A /Rev.A/A?\\ the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1.1). Nevertheless, consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the Court will allow Joshua to present additional evidence of the LRSD 's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directlv to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith. Similarly, in putting on evidence regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities, counsel for Joshua may present evidence regarding how those issues adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. However, the Court will not allow counsel for Joshua to introduce any new or cumulative evidence on the issue of academic achievement, a subject that has already been thoroughly and extensively covered by Joshua's presentation of their strongest evidence during last year's six days of evidentiary hearings. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order within ten days setting aside up to five days (probably in June and/or July) to conclude the evidentiary record on the remaining factual issues relevant to the question of whether the LRSD is entitled to a declaration ofunitary status. Prior to entering that Order, the Court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to set the dates during which this evidentiary hearing will take place. \u0026lt;)Tn DATED this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,_, _\"TH RULE 58 ANO/OR~ fR_;: () ~o/10/0 a-~ Gj1 ~ UNITEb ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al MAY 2 0 2002 KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER u.frJJR1~PuRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This is to confirm a telephone conference will be held today, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to carefully review the Court's Order of May 9, 2002 before the telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2002. .u J d,. ln\\n  ,-~:1~,-f-.( UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE ord.LRSD 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL '' DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT c- 1\\STER!~\\ CJiST9'CT ADV ~r--1c; Ac; ,M~Y 1 5 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2002 Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~l\\Ott MOttllORlltG Yesterday, on May 14, 2002, an on-the-record telephone conference was held with the lawyers for all the parties. During the telephone conference the following schedule was adopted: l. A final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School District's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status was set to commence on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; and to conclude on Friday, July 26 at 5:30 p.m . The time will be divided as follows: a. At 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 22 the Joshua intervenors will be given 30 minutes within which to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright; b. -2- The remaining forty hours of trial time will be divided equally (twenty hours and twenty hours) between the Joshua intervenors and the Little Rock School District. The Joshua intervenors must notify the Court, on or before July 9, 2002 of the amount of time, out of their twenty hours, that they wish to reserve to present rebuttal evidence. 2. I expect to take testimony from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 22 (with an hour for lunch); and from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. on each of the following four days (with an hour for lunch each day). 3. On or before June 21, 2002 the parties are directed to identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included, of each witness 's anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address. 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre - marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances . S. U. S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray will conduct a hearing commencing at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 2002. At that hearing, all exhibits will be presented, and pre-marked references will be two-blocked ; the witness lists and accompanying witness statements mentioned above will be submitted ; and evidentiary objections and motions in Ii mine will be submitted (it is likely that -3- 1 will later rule on most of the evidentiary objections and motions in limine, - although Judge Ray may issue some rulings during his hearing). 4. By 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, August 19, 2002 the parties must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Little Rock School Districts Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status. 5. It is re-emphasized that the parties will be required to present evidence within the limits set in my order of Thursday, May 9. 6. Counsel are instructed to interview and prepare witnesses for rifle - shot presentations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12.~ay of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITI-J?.llj-E 58 AND/~~)~ FRCP ON 1/J\"-/-Dr'sy_.~~--- RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 May 21, 2002 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Dennis Hansen Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: DennisH@ag.state.ar.us Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy a Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-styled case, which I am filing with the Court today. Very truly yours, 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Cover Letter May 21, 2002 DRH/dpn Enclosure cc: Ray Simon Scott Smith Q:\\Civil\\MarkH\\Open Files\\deseg\\2002\\ c orrespondence ~ ~ Ll~~~iJ  R Hansen DAessnimstsa nt A ttome y General \\ltr cover 5-2 I -02drh.doc IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF lltS6RE6AT!ON MOillTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to state for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel the following: 1. Mark A. Hagemeier recently resigned from his position with the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General will be representing the defendant, ADE in this matter. 3. All correspondence and filings should be forwarded to the attention of Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock AR, 72201. Wherefore, the defense respectfully requests that Dennis R. Hansen be substituted as the attorney ofrecord for defendant ADE Respectfully submitted, MARK PRYOR, Attorney General By ~ L(-i44t. Dennis R. Hansen #97225 Deputy Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prien Tower 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-1315 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, do hereby certify that I have served the foreg~ument by mailing a copy of same by US. Mail, postage prepaid, thisj}s+ day of , 2002, to the following: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen AO 72A (Rev.8/82) FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUiPf\"i D!Srn:c--T \\CH' '~IC: l'I C: FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS M1\\Y 2 8 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. 8y: _________ _ DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Pending before the Court is Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602). In that Motion, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education asks that Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen be substituted for Mark A. Hagemeier as its counsel of record in this matter because Mr. Hagemeier no longer works for the Attorney General 's Office. The Court finds good cause for granting the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to substituted Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen as the attorney of record for Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Dated this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE .. :, c-1 ,~d e.!.: 53 t/:l.:,/OP~7~(~)i,:RCP 5'/17/01/ -- ---~ ---- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f\u0026lt;,'.':' ? t 11- ? EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS1~  t.LL,. WESTERN DIVISION By:MES W. McCORMACI(, CLER/( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED MAY 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DE;-:, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \" [ LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for a three-year term assuming substantial and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] 1 The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year [to] 1 .E....,__g_,_, Sturgis v. Skosos, 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 be a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 2 The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at--) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at--). On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an \"[O]pposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report.\" The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e., on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2 .1 ( general requirement of good faith compliance); achievement) ; 2.5-2.5.4 ( student discipline); 2.7.1 (program evaluation) ; 3 2.7 2.12.2 (academic (general 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment, the terms assessment and evaluation are, at times, used interchangeably. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation, until, in 2 requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate .. ); 6.0 to 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a. ); Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Carnine); Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion, this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore, do not respond to LRSD' s argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [ LRSD Mem. - the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See,~, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 223 ( \"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3 Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement ( at 37-40), and Program Evaluation ( at 40-46) . An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of a concept of \"substantial compliance. 11  Intervenors' fact.ual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix.' Summary of the Evidence I. Student Discipline A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and \\ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to school discipline. 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set  Intervenors dispute, in the argument, LRSD' s repetitive suggestion [....,Jl_,_, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 4 forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2. 5. 2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; .. 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriata disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of indi victuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 5 6. 7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 2000) ( 2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discriminatibn and policies on discipline records); revision of student handbooks; creation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building ... \"; staff development; a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD; the sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools; and expansion of the number of alternative learning sites. [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities; directing principals to comply with the handbook; informing students and parents of standards; and employing the ombudsman. [at 15] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards; in-service training; and implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson). [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6 addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan); establishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and ... work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"; increasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work. [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such- plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the \"Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is as follows: Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. [at 16] (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6. 0 through 6. 7 ( general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline. [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on school discipline, at pages 24-26. 7 (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students; the decrease in the number of students committing offenses; the sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"). [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of - general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [ at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman; steps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services; and a description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8 services related to over 450 incidents. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved. [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2 .12. 2 ( investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in ... discipline (Section 2.5) ... 165] 5 \" [at (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above). [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan.\" It added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with [the] Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9 D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14; March 2001, at 24; Tr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21; at 55, 22 to 56, 15; at 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in ex 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer, 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more, 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). Suspension Index by Year\")] [CX 743 (\"Discipline ( 9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24); Watson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 14- 21; at 113, 14 to 114, 1; ex 743] 7 (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [ at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr., 11-19-01, 'at 25, 16-19] 7 On June 14, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. It sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the number of students subjected to one or more suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of overrepresentation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. 10 reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell); Tr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14; at 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson); ex 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\"); see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [g__,__g_,_, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15; March 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals, . whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16; 128, 6-18; 149, 10 to 150, 25; 155, 7-12; 161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data, Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11 A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up of teachers, administrators, support staff, that are helping to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] ( 16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \" [has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in d~scipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had \"prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"Not to my - knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8; see also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, because apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12 (18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to -- and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, 16-25; emphasis added] (19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. 8 The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. 13 A. Because I took -- once the report came out. we discussed it in the cabinet. and it was the decision at that time that we would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them, didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, we were not going to address the issues. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25; emphasis added] ( 20.) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had -- you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools, Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14 Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree . [Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] ( 21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be e xpected to accomplish . The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114 , 4 to 119, 8; see also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)] . E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan ( 2 2 . ) Section 2. 5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the requisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement [ ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [.E....,__g__._, Tr., 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6 . 1, 6.2, 6. 3 , 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline . Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the requirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2. 5. 3, and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming t hat LRSD substantially 15 complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [ at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr . Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [ CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000dd( 4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance) . . Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] 9 (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [ ex 672-76; Tr., 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with 9 LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16 regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline; the system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6 , 13 . The LRSD did not implement any programs , policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools or personnel. See paras. 12-18. (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [ Section 2. 5. 4 J , and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20; compare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter; and, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, 16-19], and the system's major witness on the topic, testified: \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSO Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline, is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. \" [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following. [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Or. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time ... we would not respond or do anything\"; \" issues.\" See para. 19. . we were not going to address the II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of AfricanAmerican Students A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan ( 29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and\\or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this revised plan. 2. 7 .1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 19 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6. 4. Utilization of moni taring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; ... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem ( 3 o. ) Two aspects of Section 2. 7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design [ ing]\" programs and other initiatives; rather, the initiatives must also be \"implement[ed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years, Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if you will remember, and in fact -- if I can find the document, and I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20 that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort. where I felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing different, not that I am not -- I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely. but we are getting there .... [At 450- 51; emphasis added] (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] ( 33.) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for 'LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999) 1 0 and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. The State requires local districts to give benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in grades four and eight. These instruments are 21 (Grade 3, Fall 1998) .ii On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level ( \"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of AfricanAmerican grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels ... , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13]= ( 34.) The federal educational program known as \"Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56; Tr., 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9; \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" March 15, 2002, 'Tab 5, at 9 J ii For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report, at 56. i 2 The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22 Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68; see 20 u.s.c. Sec. 2701] ( 35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title I programs. The March 2000 interim report described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The staff found that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignment between the Title I programs and the reaular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68; emphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr., 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else .... [Tr., 11-19-01, at 199-200] (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 Title I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding (i.e., originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] ( 39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.1 at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan, alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24 development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32; see also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures, some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed durihg 1998-99 and the Board of directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. The March 2000 report stated that \"PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD . \" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99; see also id. at 25 90 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: Implementation of standards-based, inquiry-based instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers and 4 5 3 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is a vitally important part of the new literacy program. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 200113 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2. 7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students ... \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. 13 See March 2000 report at 43, 44, 4 7, 48, 49; March 2001 report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 26 ( i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA ( \"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives  11 [CX 719, Policy IHBA] (ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R \"Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers \"of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [ i] is not performing on grade level (K-4); [ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8); and [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, 27 geometry, and\\or algebra.\" \"School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. 11 The regulation further provides: The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1. 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2. 7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, is also apparent. (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] ( 4 3. ) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999 11 the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91 ] (44 . ) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that -- particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get all that done. It has to be followed up over and over and over. And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so much. The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207, 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the Pre-K-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. 1  The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional develop-ment . . 'In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \" [ LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status.\" 29 investing in curriculum materials.' ... [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the \"Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based; 2 - partially implementing standards-based; 1 - minimally implementing standards based; O - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30 follows: \"4 - excellent; 3 - good; 2 - fair; 1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 32 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents a trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on the data provided, the District is in an active transition from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2. 4 ( on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000-01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] ( 48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3; compare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000 11 [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 (49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include . . an examination  of the different forms of inter-ventions. II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum, LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the \"Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51.) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether the new PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32 Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, State Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination, which measure mastery of knowledge and skills, identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra; see also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, eight percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, yes, AfricanAmerican students were eight proficient. Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33 o. And a major part of your explanation for that result is that those students. in terms of the curriculum they had received. had not been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math. right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, 20 percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. o. And do you think that. again. that part of the reason for that was that the curriculum those students had had not covered many of the strands in the state benchmarks for literacy? A. Yes. [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21; emphasis added] (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were -- 4th grade literacy 19%; 4th grade math 14%; 8th grade literacy 18%; and 8th grade math only 49.c I 0. See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the gradeappropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34 new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004) . 1 5 (55 . ) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks; (b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2. 7; or ( c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than, as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras . 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 1 5 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of deli very of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). ( 57.) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 - 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on, \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such; the staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such, violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36 III. Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years, Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct, about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]; Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie) . i 6 (60.) The LRSD did not \"[develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . \"during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell); see also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 Carnine)] to 3 7 9 , 18 (Dr. (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show, at best, continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at \"See also ex 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [ i J the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01); [ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6. 6 times ( 1998-99), 4 .1 times ( 1999-2000), and 3. 7 times ( 2000-01); [ iii J the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01); and [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 1996-97 through 2001-02 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last {2001- 02) years of the six year period. [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances; [ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances; [iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 instances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [CX 741, at 1] ( 62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[lhg_._, Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the ORA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program, Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use ORA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black, from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 obligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students , \" See paragraphs 41-55. ( 65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 11 which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part 5 of the plan. Third. The assessment obligation is annual in nature. ( 67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w] ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably \" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions, that compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40 this proposition, when called as a witness by the Joshua Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to ( e) . (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver from State or District rules includes an evaluation design 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See ex 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. (CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44; emphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites, inter 41 alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [ at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [ at 52], and \" [ t ]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda August 1999.\" [At 53] approved by the Board of Education in (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" -- a title which is repeated at a later point in the discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12; see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook .. obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \"assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22; 243, 6 to 249, 14; see also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel) ] 17 The content of paragraphs 1 7 Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment from a \"program evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23] -- a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year. \"In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment'' as 42 (a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook obligation.\" [this] (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program, and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr. , 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, 23; at 389, 18 to 392, 18; at 400, 16 to 401, 22 (Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, inter-encompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43 nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley); at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 334, 5-14 ; at 495, 16 to 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley); Tr., 11- 20-0l, at 321, 21 to 322, 22; at 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9; at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below par. See para. 49. (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47; March 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44 \"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000 11 was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721; Tr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell); Tr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated ... [11] programs .... 11 [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001; there is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [ dd J The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001; it was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45 [hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727; Tr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is a collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728; Tr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [ j j] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship, dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729; Tr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief, undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2. 7 .1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46 Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [ two of] the parties ... \"[LRSD v. PCSSD, li, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)] -- the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaskui County Special School District, No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum, this court is called upon to apply the parties ' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)J The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation, and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteriaa is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\"); they form \"the law of [this] case.\" 1 8 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47 Construed as an entirety [seen. 1 at 1, supra], the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. [At 1199; emphasis added] The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are, first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable; \"[t]he consent decree did not state the time of its duration.\" See 139 F.3d at 1198. 48 the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, \"serious\" matters. given their subject matter, involve The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable .from one context to another. Like 'reasonableness,' ... 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance .... [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra J, Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49 B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on race.\" See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious.\" Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . \" [Sec. 2.5; emphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of life. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore, \"the law of this case.\" The (behavior failure to implement the modification plans) provisions can not of be Section 2. 5. 4 dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50 of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans; the LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C. Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] \"[T]he circumstances of [this] case ... \"[Fortin.supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program -- a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements of federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum, implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula, provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth J not performing well, and moni taring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43-51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so -- and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine); see para. 62. The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]; there have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At 1. para. BJ Manifestly, a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52 \"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Se    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":2,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":31,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":0,"total_count":371,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"StillImage","hits":237},{"value":"Text","hits":100},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":33},{"value":"Sound","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":56},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":36},{"value":"Jones, Ed","hits":26},{"value":"Adams, Robert","hits":18},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":18},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":17},{"value":"Roberts, Maxie","hits":15},{"value":"Battle, Dave","hits":13},{"value":"Atlanta (Ga.), Office of the Mayor","hits":10},{"value":"Barbee, Lloyd A., 1925-2002","hits":9},{"value":"Dean, Norman","hits":9}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Students","hits":371},{"value":"School integration","hits":158},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":150},{"value":"Education","hits":130},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":121},{"value":"Jefferson County (Ala.)","hits":82},{"value":"African Americans--Education","hits":80},{"value":"Race relations--Alabama","hits":77},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)","hits":76},{"value":"Segregation--Alabama","hits":73},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":72}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":10},{"value":"Young, Jean Childs","hits":10},{"value":"Barbee, Lloyd A., 1925-2002","hits":9},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":7},{"value":"Jones, Vivian Juanita Malone, 1942-2005","hits":6},{"value":"Marcus, Patricia, 1950-","hits":6},{"value":"Piedrahita, Dorothy Frazier","hits":6},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":5},{"value":"Hood, James Alexander, 1942-2013","hits":5},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":5},{"value":"Davis, Dorothy Bridgett","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":10},{"value":"Young, Jean Childs","hits":10},{"value":"Barbee, Lloyd A., 1925-2002","hits":9},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":7},{"value":"Jones, Vivian Juanita Malone, 1942-2005","hits":6},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":5},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":5},{"value":"Maier, Henry W., 1918-1994","hits":3},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":3},{"value":"Wallace, George C. (George Corley), 1919-1998","hits":3},{"value":"Wallace, Lurleen, 1926-1968","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":11},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":5},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":4},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":4},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":119},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":75},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":74},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":74},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":73},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":56},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481","hits":22},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","hits":20},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":18},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, Charleston County, 32.74917, -79.94202","hits":13},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, Charleston County, Charleston, 32.77657, -79.93092","hits":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Alabama","hits":176},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":74},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":42},{"value":"Georgia","hits":22},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":15},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":10},{"value":"Ohio","hits":10},{"value":"Indiana","hits":7},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":6},{"value":"Texas","hits":5},{"value":"Washington","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1963","hits":77},{"value":"1966","hits":60},{"value":"1965","hits":37},{"value":"1964","hits":26},{"value":"1997","hits":26},{"value":"1970","hits":25},{"value":"1989","hits":25},{"value":"1996","hits":24},{"value":"1957","hits":22},{"value":"1967","hits":20},{"value":"1968","hits":19},{"value":"1998","hits":19},{"value":"1999","hits":19},{"value":"1971","hits":17},{"value":"1993","hits":17},{"value":"2001","hits":17},{"value":"1992","hits":16},{"value":"2000","hits":16},{"value":"1994","hits":15},{"value":"1995","hits":15},{"value":"2002","hits":15},{"value":"1969","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":13},{"value":"1990","hits":12},{"value":"1972","hits":11},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"1991","hits":11},{"value":"1960","hits":10},{"value":"2003","hits":10},{"value":"1962","hits":9},{"value":"1976","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1982","hits":8},{"value":"1983","hits":8},{"value":"1986","hits":8},{"value":"1987","hits":8},{"value":"2004","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1980","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1984","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1988","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":6},{"value":"1952","hits":6},{"value":"1954","hits":6},{"value":"1955","hits":6},{"value":"1956","hits":6},{"value":"1961","hits":6},{"value":"1977","hits":6},{"value":"1978","hits":6},{"value":"1979","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1939","hits":5},{"value":"1940","hits":5},{"value":"1947","hits":5},{"value":"1948","hits":5},{"value":"2005","hits":5},{"value":"1930","hits":4},{"value":"1931","hits":4},{"value":"1932","hits":4},{"value":"1933","hits":4},{"value":"1934","hits":4},{"value":"1935","hits":4},{"value":"1936","hits":4},{"value":"1937","hits":4},{"value":"1938","hits":4},{"value":"1941","hits":4},{"value":"1942","hits":4},{"value":"1943","hits":4},{"value":"1944","hits":4},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1946","hits":4},{"value":"1949","hits":4},{"value":"2012","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2006","hits":3},{"value":"2007","hits":3},{"value":"2008","hits":3},{"value":"2009","hits":3},{"value":"2010","hits":3},{"value":"2011","hits":3},{"value":"2013","hits":3},{"value":"2014","hits":3},{"value":"2015","hits":3},{"value":"2016","hits":3},{"value":"2017","hits":3},{"value":"2018","hits":3},{"value":"2021","hits":3},{"value":"2022","hits":3},{"value":"2023","hits":3},{"value":"2024","hits":3},{"value":"2025","hits":3},{"value":"2026","hits":3},{"value":"1870","hits":2},{"value":"1871","hits":2},{"value":"1872","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1869","max":"2036","count":1089,"missing":3},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":140},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":84},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":58},{"value":"photographs","hits":41},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":34},{"value":"images (object genre)","hits":21},{"value":"filing","hits":20},{"value":"video recordings (physical artifacts)","hits":11},{"value":"handbooks","hits":10},{"value":"correspondence","hits":7},{"value":"television programs","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":271},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":94},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":108},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":74},{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":54},{"value":"The State Newspaper Photograph Archive","hits":36},{"value":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","hits":17},{"value":"Long Civil Rights Movement: Photographs from the Ronnie Moore Papers, 1964 -1972","hits":16},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":16},{"value":"Cleveland Press Collection","hits":10},{"value":"WSFA Collection","hits":10},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":6},{"value":"Madam C.J. Walker","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":175},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":74},{"value":"Richland Library","hits":36},{"value":"Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History","hits":17},{"value":"Amistad Research Center","hits":16},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":15},{"value":"Michael Schwartz Library","hits":10},{"value":"Indiana Historical Society","hits":7},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":6},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":4},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Moving Image Research Collections","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":369},{"value":"Collection","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":371}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}