{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1229","title":"Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2006-12-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1229"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LRC 82 --866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR . ROY BROOKS DECEMBER 13TH , 2006 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING'  620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushma.nreporting@aoi.com RECEIVED _IMI 1 0 2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGA\"iiuN MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P . A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK, AR. 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr . Walker . .......................... . Examination by Mr . Heller ........................ . Deposition concluded ..... : ........... . . . .... . ...... . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 73 74 75 3 4 ROY BROOKS PRODUCED, SWORN, AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker, 1723 Broadway, in Little Rock, Arkansas, beginning at 10:10 a . m. on December 13th, 2006, the above-entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by agreement of counsel, at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER : Q State your name . A Roy Brooks. Q Dr. Brooks, you have been deposed before? A Yes. Q I won 't go through the preliminary ' s . When you were hired 5 did you have any experience first of all, in your training -- you do have a doctorate degree in education? A Q A Q A Q A Yes, that's correct. From what institution? Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale . Is that an on-line university? No . You had actual classes? Yes, sir. Q Did you have classes that dealt with evaluation and curriculum? A Q A Q A Q I would think so, yes . You don't recall? Yeah. I see. Undergrad. All right. I take it you don't mind giving us a copy of t his undergraduate transcript and this graduate transcript? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . HELLER : We ' ll see if it's part of his application . may be . BY MR. WALKER : Q Where did you attend college? A Florida . Q Which college? A Florida A\u0026amp;M . Q FAMU? A Uh huh. Q Do you remember my namesake and \"friend down there , Dr . Charles Walker? A No . He was head of the pharmacology department . No. What year did you graduate? '73 . With a major in what? Elementary ed. Were you an honor graduate? No . I see . It Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there . I was happy to get the degree . Did you receive a master's degree? Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 Q From what institution? A Nova Southeastern University. Q What year? A I don't remember . Q Would it have been within three or four years after you graduated from college? A It could have been . I don ' t have that document in front of me . Q I see . Did you graduate with honors from Nova Southeast University with respect to your master ' s degree? A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there too . Are you being facetious? No, I 'm being honest . I had to work hard to get it. Okay. Now, when did you get your doctorate degree? Sometime in the '90 ' s . I don't remember . So that would have been in the last 10 years? Perhaps, yeah. Would it be 10 years or almost 20? It was '90 and it's 2006, that ' s 16, 17 years. Q But you said '90's so I just assumed that it was in mid- 90's, which would have been A Q I think it was earlier than that . I see. Now, have you ever been a superintendent of schools before you came to Little Rock? A Q No . Have you ever written any books on any subject? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No . Q Have you written any articles which appeared in any learning journals? A No . Q Have you published anything under your authorship or name? A Q A Q A Q A Q No, just when I was in school . What was the subject of your Ph . D dissertation? I don ' t remember . Do you have a copy of it? I don ' t think so . Is it capable of being reviewed? Oh , I 'm sure you could pull it up fro~ th~ archives . Of what institution? A The university I just said , Nova Southeast University, the second largest private university in America . Q I understand. Most of the students that attend there are on- line\naren ' t they? A No . It ' s a full university in Fort Lauderdale with football, baseball, soccer, dormitories . Q I see. A Q Go on-line and look it up . Weil, with respect to your dissertation, can you give me any general subject that you addressed in your dissertation? A Mr . Walker, I don't remember . That was a long time ago. don't remember what it was about. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 8 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A You don't recall what your investigation was? I don't remember what that was about. It had something to do with self-esteem or -- I don't remember. Q Were you employed during the time you were obtaining your master's and doctorate degrees? A Yes. Where were you employed? Orange County, Florida. 9 Q A Q Would you tell me your employment history in Orange County, Florida? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I was a teacher . For how many years? 10 or 8. I don't remember exactly. All right. Then what were you next? Assistant Principal. For how many years? A couple. I don't remember exactly. At what school? Chickasaw. Is that an elementary school? Yes. What was your next job there? Principal. Of which school? There were a number of schools. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Tell me the names in order . Tangelo Park. T- A- N-G- E- L-O Park . For how many years? Four or five . I don't remember exactly. All right . That's an elementary school? Yes . And ih~ next one? Catalina . Is that an elementary school? Yes. For how many years? Three or four. I don ' t remember exactly. And the next one? Orange Center. Is that an elementary school? Yes . For how many years? The same. Three or four? Yes . And the next one? I became an area superintendent . What year was that? '96, I think . And in Orange County, were the areas geographically BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arranged? A Yes. Q Were they also grade level arranged? A No. The schools were -- it was geography . Q Did they cover K through 12? A Q A Q A Yes. I see . Your training was in elementary education? Yes . Was your certification in K through 12 as a teacher? No . Q I see . Was your -- all right . So you ' ve never been certified for high school? A Q A Q A Not as a teacher . I see . How many schools were in your area? 34 or 35 . Were most of the elementary? No. Elementary, middle and high school . Q By definition, most of the schools in any district are elementary\naren't they? A Most of them were elementary, yes. Q All right. Now, what was the -- for the Orange County School System what were the demographics of the student body? A For the district? Yes. 11 Q A I would say maybe 25 percent African- American and maybe 15 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 or 20 percent Hispanic and the rest white. Q So your experience as a supervisor is with a majority white school system\nis that correct? A That ' s correct . Q All right . So you have no previous experi ence with a majority black school system? A Orange County was more white kids , yes . Q So your experience is with a predominately white school system\nisn ' t that correct? A As an area superintendent , yes . Q I see . Also as a teacher and principal? All of it is within a majority white school system\nisn ' t it? A No . As a teacher, yes . Q Weren ' t the schools Tangelo Park , Catalina and Orange Center -- A Q A Q A Q No. They were -- Black schools , yes. They were black schools? Yes, sir . I see . What do you call a black school in terms of percentages? A I think if it's a majority. Q A That means 51 percent or more? I think that whatever if there are more black kids than BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 \" II 1 - 2 3 \" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 white kids then I would think it would be the majority of the kids would be black, yes . Q I see . Are there any results that you have that are 13 reduced to writing which reflect the achievement of the students under your leadership at Tangelo Park, Catalina and Orange Center? A I don ' t know exactly what you mean . Q Were any written reports made by the county school system which address the issue of academic achievement of Tangelo Park, Catalina A Oh , yeah. There were standardized tests at all those schools consistent with policy, district policy and Florida law , yes . Q What I 'm asking is is there a report which reflects the relative achievement of those students in which A I'm sure back in the archives that you can go and get the achievement results of those youngsters in those schools . Q I'm not talking about the achievement results. I'm not talking about the test results . Is there any report which sets ' out how well, in writing, how well, comparatively speaking, those children in those three schools did -- A I 'don't know if that exists, Mr . Walker . Q I see . I see. Now, have you been the subject, other than in Little Rock, of any article or comment regarding your qualifications for anything, other than when you came to Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rock in newspapers or otherwise? A Yes. Q Which publications? A The Orlando Sentinel . Q A Q A Q What year was that? It was i n the '90 ' s . Was that when you got ready to leave? No, that was before . Do you recall what the Orlando Sentinel -- was that an editorial or was it just a news report? A There were several editorials but I 'm sure you can pull them up . Q What was the subject of the editorial? A Q A Q A I don't remember the subject . Were you the subject of the editorial? A couple, yes . What do you recall the comments of the editorials to be? The Orlando Sentinel talked about the title was expecting excellence and it chronicled my success in being able to move one of Orlando's poorest and highest minority schools forward. That was just not a editorial, it was a feature article in Florida Magazine, which was a insert into the Orlando Sentinel and distributed to almost, I guess , 700,000 people . Q A I see . Do you recall what year that was? It was in the '90's. I don't remember what year , Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Walker . Q I see . Now, what school was that? A That was Orange Center . I think I have a big copy of that in my office on the wall . Q So you can make that available to us? A Oh, s ure . I ' d love for you to read that. Q All right. Now , can you tell me any programs that you initiated on purpose to address academic achievement of minority students while you were there? On purpose . Not just that were already there or were required by the curriculum. Any new programs that you initiated? A I can ' t recall . Q Did you initiate any new programs that you can identify by name? A Q A Q Academic programs? Yes, sir . I can't I don't remember initiating any . I see. Now, I take it then that basically your forte was to see to it that the teachers did well or better than they were doing before in that school . Is that fair to say? A To supervise the school, yes, as principal. Q I see. And you held the teachers more accountable\nis that fair to say? A I held e veryone accountable. Q I see . Is i t fair to say that most of the teachers in that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 school were white? A I don ' t know what the percentage was. Q Well, you know that more than 51 percent is majority so is it fair to say that most of them were white or were most of them black? A I'd have to see something in front of me to answer that completely . Q You can't recall? A I would think that a majority were probably white . Q I see. Okay . Is it fair to say that in Catalina and Tangelo Park that a majority of those teachers were also white? A Here again , I ' d have to have that in front of me . I can 't recall. Q Do you recall ever being in a situation as a teacher or a principal where a majority of your staff, professional staff , were African-American? A I don ' t recall that, no . Q All right. So your basic experience is also with situations where white people ran everything and did the teaching and everything else\nisn ' t that correct? A Q I'm not clear on your question . Well, they ran the school system\ndidn't they? The board was majority white\nwasn't it? A Q Yes. I see . And the administration was majority white\nwasn't BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? A Q Yes . And the teaching staff where you were when you were principal were majority white? A Q Yes . I see . Were you under court order? Was this district under court order at the time you were area superintendent? A Q Yes . Did you ever make or give any testimony in any proceeding while the case was in court? No . 17 A Q With all the wonderful results that you obtained, you were never called upon to give testimony? A Q No . What was the court order that you were under , to your knowledge? A Q A Q any A Q A Q There was a 1972 court order . Do you know the name of the case? No . I see. Did you have any responsibility for aspect of the court order? No . Did you ever make any report to the court? No. implementing I see. What was the district ordered to do while you were BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the area superintendent? Do you recall? A The court order was in place long before I became area superintendent. Q I understand. What did you understand your duties, under the court order, to be during the time you were area superintendent? A To comply with it . Q Well, I understand. What specifically were you to do in order to comply? A It was a court order that really focused in on attendance zones. Q That ' s right. It didn't have to deal with remediation of achievement disparities\ndid it? A Not that I recall. 18 Q I see. Is it fair to say that the achievement disparities between black and white students in Orange County were comparable to those that you found when you came to Little Rock? A I would think so. Probably everywhere . Q You have no first-hand experience with everywhere\ndo you? You only have first - hand experience with two districts? A Q That's correct. I see. You haven't had any training that allows you to make a judgment about what is everywhere\ndo you? A Q That's correct. Now, do you recall when you came here that you caused the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 removal of a number of principals? A I didn't cause the removal. Q Do you recall that a number of principals left the school system for one reason or another? Do you recall that? A I think there were some retirements and that kind of thing. Q For one reason or another? A Yeah. Q Is it fair to say that they are as follows: The principal at Hall High School\nthe principal at McClellan\nthe principal at Fair\nthe principal at Forrest Park, Forrest Heights Middle School\nthe principal at Cloverdale Middle School? Do you recall those four? A There are different principals at those schools, yes, sir. Q But soon after you got here those principals left\nis that fair to say? A I was here for a year with some of those . Q I understand. Soon after you got here, they left. Is that right? A For one reason or another, yes. Q And they were all African-American? Is that fair to say? A No. Q Was not the principals at Cloverdale, Forrest Heights, Fair and McClellan, the ones who left the district, were they not all African-Americans? A No. McClellan was a white principal. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q Was that Mr . Larry Buck? Yes . Did you not assign Mr . Larry Buck to McClellan? No. That was by Dr . James, I take it? A I wouldn ' t know who assigned him, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Do you recall the name of the principal at McDermott that left? A I don't want to take a guess. I don't recall the name . 20 Q You did replace the principals at McClellan, Fair, Forrest Heights, and Cloverdale in the first year with white persons\ndidn't you? A No. Q Upon the leaving or departure of the principal, which one of those people was replaced by a black person? A All those principals are black at all those schools . Q I'm not talking about now. The immediate replacement upon the departure of the people were white\nweren't they? A No. Q Isn't it true that last year during the 2004 - 2005 school year, all of your secondary principals were white? All of your high school principals were white? A I would have to think of the schools. I don't think so . Q That's fine. Now, Dr. Brooks, how much did you know about the court order in the Little Rock School District at the time BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110  I ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 you were interviewing for the job? A Very little. Q And when did you, after being hired, or have you ever read all the court opinions in this case? A No. Q I see. Can you tell me any of them that you have read? A The first and most important one I read was Judge Wilson 's Order upon my appointment as superintendent . In fact , that was the first document that I received and I think I received that document in Florida , if I recall , before I permanently settled in here in Little Rock . In fact, I remember reading the document on an airplane , I think . Q Do you recall the date of that order? A I think it was 2004 . I think it was either June or July of 2004 . Q Have you read any of the other orders that Judge Wilson or any other judge entered in this case? A I have looked at some of those -- Q No . Read is my question . Have you read any of the other orders of any other persons? A Not with the thoroughness that I've read Judge Wilson ' s Order because Judge Wilson ' s Order was the one that was most important and most pertinent to me. Q I see. Now, the only one that you recall with some recollection is the order of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I I 22 J 1 A That 's correct . 2 Q I see . Now, did you, upon being hired , meet with Mr . 3 Heller? 4 A Soon after I was hired , yes , I got together with Mr. 5 Heller . 6 Q Did you have a discussion regarding the 2004 order with 7 him? 8 A Yes . 9 Q Do you recall who else was present? 10 A I don ' t remember . 11 Q Was anybody else present at the time? 12 A I don ' t remember , Mr. Walker . 3 Q How long did the meeting last? 14 A I don ' t remember, Mr . Walker . 15 Q I see . Was it more than one meeting regarding the 2004 16 order? 17 A I probably met more than one time with Mr . Heller regarding 18 that . 19 Q Do you recall a second meeting? 20 A I recall a number of times talking with Mr\nHeller about 21 the 2004 order . I can't list times, dates, etcetera, etcetera . 22 I've sp'oke with Mr . Heller on a number of occasions. 23 Q Do you make a distinction between meetings and 24 conversations? 25 A I think they are distinctly different. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 23 Q Do you recall more than one meeting regarding the judge 's 2004 order with Mr. Heller? A I remember mult i ple meetings with Mr . Heller regarding that order . Q Where did those meetings take place? A Mo s tly in my office. Q A Q A Were any other people present? I don't remember. Were any Board members present? I don ' t remember . Q Do you recall having any one on one discussions with any Board member regarding the 2004 order? A Yeah , I ' ve talked with the Board members about that order. Q Tell me when you first talked with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the 2004 order . A I don ' t remember exactly . Q Tell me what conversation took place between you and Mr . Rose with respect to the 2004 order . A I think that the fact that the district was still in court came up, if I refall, during my interview . Q I'm talking about meetings after you were hired. Tell me about the conversations you had one on one with Mr . Rose regarding A I can't go back and recall , with as many times as I have interacted with Board meetings, individual times with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specificity in terms of when I talk with a Board member about the order . Here is what I am going to say : I do recall on occasions having spoke with Board members about the order reassuring them that we would do everything we could to comply with the Judge ' s order. 24 Q Let me ask you : Have you created any writings with re s pec t to this r eassurance or which reflects your understanding of the court order? A Q I don't think there is anything that I -- I see. Now , going back to my question : Do you recall any meeting one on one with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the evaluations? A The evaluation of -- Q The evaluation process , yes . Do you recall any one on one meeting with him regarding that? A I don ' t recall . Q I see . That doesn ' t mean you didn't have any\ndoes it? A Q A Q A Q No, it doesn ' t. Did you regularly speak with Mr . Tony Rose? I regularly spoke with each and every Board member. I'm asking about Mr. Tony Rose now. In what regard? Any regard . A Here again, I spoke -- Q That ' s yes or no . Did you regularly speak with Mr. Tony Rose during the time that he was on the Board? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes , as I did with every other Board member. I see. Have you regularly spoken with Mr. Armstrong? Since Mr . Armstrong has been on the Board, I have spoken with him by phone a number of occasions . I think we ' ve eaten lunch at least once, maybe twice . I think we ate lunch at a school together. Q I see. Have you ever discussed with Mr . Armstrong the subject of program evaluation? A Not specifically . 25 Q Have you ever discussed with him this Board resolution that was dated November 16th, 2006, which is Exhibit 8 to the previous deposition? Have you ever discussed that with -him? A Before the Board votes on anything , I call Board members to Q I 'm not asking you about A Let me finish this . Q Go ahead. I'll let you finish. A I call Board members and I ask Board members if they have any questions about any of the agenda items . That has been my longstanding practice. The Board members are provided with the i -nformation and they read it, review it, and if they have questions then they ask me . Q My question again is: Did you have any discussion with Mr . Armstrong regarding this resolution before the Board meeting? A Not one on one with Mr . Armstrong . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 - ~ 26 1 Q I see . How did you get this resolution? Did you develop 2 it yourself? 3 A It was part of what we needed to do . 4 Q Did you develop it yourself? How did you get it is my 5 question . I 'm not asking why yo had it . How did you get it is 6 my question. 7 A It was through our attorney. 8 Q Did it come to you by letter or by e-mail? 9 A I don 't remember. It could have been e-mail. 10 Q Did you send it to the Board members the day you got it? 11 A I don 't know if I sent it the day I got it, no . I don't 12 know if I send anything everyday. 3 Q Well, it's written in here , \"it is so resolved this 16th 14 day of November\". 15 A They all got it. 16 Q Did they get it before the meeting? 17 A Yes, sir . 18 Q How much in advance of the meeting did they get it? 19 A They got it, I think, 48 hours before. 20 Q Now, at the time that you sent this resolution did you send 21 a whole volume, a large volume of other documents? 22 A An- agenda packet. It's on-line, yes. 23 Q It's your practice, isn't it, to give them the agenda 24 packet two days before the meeting? Is that fair to say? 25 A That's the law . You have 48 hours. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Q What is the time that Board members have to review these documents? 48 hours? A That and somet i mes less if it is an emergency . Q Was there any emergency involving this? A It was part of the agenda packet . I don't know if an emergency meet i ng was called because of that . Q Now, did you tell anybody on the Board what the purpose of this resolution was? A It ' s self- explanator y. Q No . Did you tell anybody what the purpose of this resolution was? A I don ' t recall. Q I see . Now , did you know what was happening in PRE as of November 16th, 2006? A What do you mean what was happening? Q Did you know what was taking place within the department of PRE during that time? A What was taking place? Q Yes. A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q Let me ask you : You were aware that there had been for much of the year a number of evaluation team meetings regarding PRE matters and evaluations? You were aware of that\nweren't you? A Sure . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , 25 Q A Q A Q A Did you ever attend one of those team meetings? No . I see . Yes . Is there a reason you chose not to? What is that reason? I had staff members attend . Q I see. With this being so important , is there any reason 28 that you, as a CEO, would not come to not one of those meetings? A I tell you , there are a lot of meetings that I didn ' t attend but I had staff there. Q Well, I notice that you regularly met with the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A Pardon? Q You regularly met with people from the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn ' t you? A We're a member of the Chamber of Commerce . Q I understand. But you regularly met with the executive director and the president of the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A I have met with members of the Chamber of Commerce, yes . Q Name each one of them, please . A I met with the executive director, previous executive director. I don't think I met him with just one on one and I remember being in a meeting with Jay Chesher (phonetic sp. ) Q Is it fair to say that you met with them at least every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 month? A Q I don ' t think I met every month , no, sir . But pretty regularly, wouldn't you say? 29 A I don ' t think -- I wouldn't characterize it , Mr . Walker , as regularly . Q How often would you say you met with them in the last 12 months? A I would say that I met with Mr . Chesher may two or three times , along with other superintendents . Q A Oh, you were not the only person meeting with them? No . The last two or three meetings I think we met with the superintendent of Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock . Q Did you discuss the subject with those people release from court supervision? A Q A Q My discussions with those That's yes or no. - - people was regarding Please listen to my question . I didn't ask what all of them were. I asked if you discussed the subject of release from court supervision . A The last time the three superintendents met with Jay Chesher, I think that did come up. Q Did you ever tell anybody what the advantages to being out of court were? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Who is anybody? Anybody in the world. Anybody? A Q A I think one of the most important advantages is is that for the first time the court is not really supervising the district but the Board of Directors are supervisini the district. I would think with the historic hoopla about a majority black board that those members would readily embrace the fact that now we can supervise this district without the intervention of the court, without the intervention of the lawyers, etcetera, etcetera . I think it would be something that would be historic in nature. Q That's the only one that you can come up with? A I think that's a very important one. Q What are the disadvantages to court release? A I think the public . I think the expense . I think that getting -- Q A You said the expense is a disadvantage? I think there are expenses associated with this court supervision. We're paying lawyers -- Q Let me go back. I'm asking you about the difference between a pro and a con . I'm asking you what are the disadvantages. Do you know what is meant by disadvantage? A Q A Yes .. What are the disadvantages of getting out of court? The disadvantages? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Yeah . I think there are advantages -- Q I'm asking only about disadvantages . 31 A I am not going to suggest to anyone that not getting out of court is not a good thing . Getting out of court is a good thing . Q You see no disadvantages? A Personally, I think it would be a glorious day to get out of court. Q My question is : Do you see any disadvantage in A I only see advantages in getting out of court . Q Let me ask you this : If you lose 30 million dollars a year or 40 million dollars a year, what is the advantage of that? A That is a number that I ' ve heard you throw around and I don't think Q Wait a minute . Let ' s assume if you lose 10 million , whatever million, what is the disadvantage of losing that money? A We don ' t know how much we'll lose if we lose and we don't know when we'll lose it . I think that that is something that people have overstated and exaggerated and it's speculation . Q Just a moment . Have you sought to conduct a study to determ~ne what the loss will be -- A Q A I've done no study . --and how it will be made up and from where it will come? We've done no study . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' -~ 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . A No , sir . Q Now, what will be the disadvantage in losing the magnet schools? What will be the advantage in losing the magnet schools? A I think the magnet schools are very important. Q What would be the advantage in losing them? A I don ' t want to think about losing them, sir . Q I see . But you haven ' t considered that\nhave you? A I don ' t think we ' ll lose them . Q Have you considered that? A We ' ve -- Q That ' s yes or no . 32 A We ' ve considered that we would have to really find ways to continue what I think is something very important . Q Have you had a discussion with Mr . Heller about that subject? A We've talked about the magnet schools , yes . Q Now, have you reported to the Board the results of those conversations with Mr . Heller on retention of and continuation of magnet schools upon court - - A No, there hasn't been any reason to do that. Q All right . Have you - - what is the advantage of eliminating the M to M transfer program? A Here again, it - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 q 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q What is the advantage? The advantage? Yes . What is the advantage of doing that? A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q You don't understand? You're a superintendent and I am 33 sure that is a simple question . What is the advantage of losing the M to M transfer programs? A Well , the advantage would be that some districts have a lack of kids- - Q A Your district . --going from majority to minority schools and being provided with the transportation. Q So the advantage would be to put them back in their neighborhoods? A I don't think that will happen. Q Well, just a moment . What will happen upon the loss of M to M funds by this district if you chose to let that happen? What would be the advantage of that? A I don't see that happening . Q You don't see that happening? Hasn't Mr. Heller informed you and you have informed others that you may expect to lose M to M funding? That's yes or no. BY MR . HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 34 Have you not been informed that you will soon, by the 2007 year, lose M to M funding? A I don't think that taxpayers Q Just yes or no . A I have to -- Q I'm not asking you about what you think. I'm asking you about your information now. Your thoughts -- A Nothing is going to last forever. Jhis funding one day is going to go away. Q Just a moment. Have you been. infermed that you will lose M to M funding at the beginnirig of the 2007- 2008 school year? A r don't think a decision has been made about that. Q Have you been so informed? Yes or no? A No. That would be speculation. Q In the event that M to M funding is lost, do you have a plan for replacing that money? A We have no plan, Mr . Walker. Q In the event that those children are no longer able to go their regular schools, where will they be assigned? Do you have a plan for that? A We have no plan . Q I see. Who will be the children most disadvantaged by being removed from their M to M transfer schools? race of the students? A I'm not sure. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 What is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Who are the students being transferred from tl School District to Pulaski County now under the M to M transfer rules? A Q Black children. Which means that if they have to, if they are no longer able to go to the county schools under M to M then that means they ' ll h ave to return to Little Rock\ndoesn ' t it? A And we will get the funding for those youngsters . Q Do you know how much funding that will take? A Whatever the foundation funding is per student. Q No . I 'm asking you : Do you know how much funding that will take? A Q A Q Oh, no, I don't know that . Do you know the schools to which they would be assigned? No, I don ' t . No , sir. Have you asked Mark Millholland to run an analysis of cost benefit to that endeavor? A No. Q A Have you had cabinet discussions regarding that subject? No . Q I see . Have you had discussions with Tony Rose and Mr . Brock regarding that subject? A No. Q Now, have you had discussions before she became president of the Board in the last year with Dr . Katherine Mitchell on any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 1.5 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 Ill 23 24 25 36 subject? A Oh , sure . Q Is it fair to say that she told you in no uncertain terms that you were not treating the teachers of the district fairly? Did she tell you that one on one? A I don ' t recall if she used those words, no . Q Did she tell you that your performance as superintendent was sorely lacking? A I don ' t remember that . Q Did she oppose your getting a raise? A She probably did. Q Probably? Do you know? A I ' d have to have it in front of me . I don't know. Q When you say she probably did, did she not tell you face to face that she felt that you were adversely impacting upon black children and poor children in southwest Little Rock? A No. Q She did not? A She ' s never told me that. Q Do you play tennis with her? A If she'd give me a call, I'd love to play tennis with Dr . Mitchell . Q I understand. Do you play tennis with Mr . Berkley regularly? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 37 1 Q Y' all go to eat every so often after playing tennis? 2 A No, we don't. 3 Q Y'all don ' t socialize afterwards? 4 A No. 5 Q You don ' t socialize with Mr . Berkley at all? 6 A I've been to Mr . Berkley 's house, yes . 7 Q Okay. Now, how many times have you been to Mr . Walter 8 Hussman's house? 9 A I don't recall going to Mr . Hussman ' s house . 10 Q Not at all? 11 A I don't recall . 12 Q You don't recall? 3 A No . 14 Q Are you saying you never did? ) 15 A No, I haven ' t been 16 Q How many ~imes do you regularly meet with Mr . Hussman? 17 Have you in the last year met with Mr. Hussman? 18 A I've met with Mr. Hussman on several occasions . 19 Q Is several more than five or six or just one or two? 20 A I don't kn9w exactly how many times, Mr. Walker. 21 Q How many times have you met with his staff? Somebody other 22 than him representing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? 23 A I don't recall meeting with anyone else. 24 Q You don't remember meeting with Mr . Paul Greenburg? 25 A I do remember that, yes . - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537 - 5110 - I 1 -- 2 3 \" 4 5 - 6 - 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 Q All right. You understand he ' s on Mr . Hussman ' s staff? A Yes. Q You do recall meeting with him and Hussman together\ndon't you? A yes, that ' s correct . Q On more than one occasion\ndon't you? A No, only one occasion . Q What was the subject of that meeting? A We talked about, I think, the district's reorganization , if I remember correctly. I don't think Mr . Hussman was there . In fa~t , Mr . Hussman was not there . Q I see . Did Mr. Hussman privately fund yo~r merit pay initiative? A The first year Mr . Hussman did fund that, yes , sir. Q And did you ask the Board to approve him doing that at the time that it was done? A The second year, yes . Q No , the first year . A The first year I wasn't here . Q Well, was that done through the Public Education Foundation? A The first year? Q Yes . A Yes, it was. Q Now, the Public Education Foundation was not really a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private organization\nwas it? A Yes, it's a private organization . Q But y ' all paid from this district payroll at least one of the staff members\ndidn't you? A A portion of her salary, yes . Q You paid all of her salary for three years\ndidn't you? A I don ' t remember paying all of it . I do remember paying a portion of it . Q And you do remember paying a portion of the salary of other people\ndon ' t you? A No , I don't recall that . Q Isn ' t it true that you let them bill you on a monthly basis for at least one- third of their salary and Mr . Millholland regularly cuts the check upon presentation of an invoice? A I only recall one employee that we were some how or another helping with her salary . Q Does the Public Education Foundation have any voice or role in the evaluation process? A Not in Little Rock Public Schools. Q How is Project Sword being evaluated? A Project Sword is not being evaluated . Project Sword is Q That's all I asked . You said it's not being evaluated. Now, does the Little Rock Public Education Foundation have interaction with the teachers involved in Project Sword? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 I I 1 I 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q And who is the principal person from the Little Rock Public Education Foundation who interac~s with your teachers from the Public Education Foundation? Who is that person? A You'd have to ask Olivine Roberts . I'm not sure I know . Q Are you on the board of the Public Education Foundation? A Yes . Q Is the Public Education Foundation subject to the pol i cies, rules and requirements of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A They're independent . Q I see . So the Board cannot determine what the Public Education Foundation ' s role with it is\nis that your position? A No . Public Education Foundation is a separate entity. It ' s not regulated by the school board of Little Rock . Q Now , is there any board resolution authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive public funding from the Little Rock School District? A Any what? Q Has the board approved any regulation authorizing the Public Education Foundation to get funding directly or indirectly from the Little Rock School District? A The Public Education Foundation -- Q That's yes or no. A - - has contributed magnificent Q Listen to my question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTI-NG (5 01 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay . Q Is there anything authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive funds from the Little Rock School District? A Not that I 'm aware of . Q Are you aware that regularly every month Mr . Millholland cuts a check to the Public Education Foundation? A He no longer does that . Q When did he stop doing that? Last month? A Q It could have been . Why did he stop doing that? 41 A Because it was an agreement that cince the Public Education Foundation got solid enough that they would assume that responsibility . Q I see . Now, have you explained the role, including Mr. Armstrong, the relationship between the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District? Have you done so? A I asked Lisa Black -- Q I'm asking if you have done so . A I wouldn't be the one to do that, Mr. Walker . Q I see. Now, Ms. Black doesn't work for the school district\ndoes she? A Q No, sir . -She did until last month\ndidn't she? About the time of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ this resolution? Ms . Black didn't work for the school district . She was just paid by the district? A portion of her salary, yes . Did she have a written contract with the district? I don ' t know that. You'd have to ask Mr . Millholland . You don ' t recall seeing the contract? No, sir . 42 A Q A Q A Q A Q All right . That's fine . Let me ask about this evaluation . Before I get to that part , have you had occasion to refer to present counsel as a parasitic lawyer? A I would never do that, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Are you aware of any payments that have been made to the Joshua counsel in this matter in the last two to three years? A Only what I ' ve seen on paper . Q Have you seen anything on any paper indicating that we've received any payment for cost or fees in that period of time? A What period of time? Q Between the time you got here and now . A Q Since I've been here, I haven't seen anything, sir . Now, do you contend that you have the authority to hire lawyers for the district? Do you contend that you have that authority? A Yes, I ho~e so . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q Is there a writing that sets the terms and conditions under which you may hire lawyers? A There is a policy, yes. Q Does it set the hourly pay and things like that or is it subject to bidding? A I'm not sure. Q I see. Let me go to direct matters . Is there a difference, in your opinion, between of policy of the school district and a regulation of the school district? A Yes . Q A Q What is the difference? A policy needs Board approval. What about a regulation? A I don't think a regulation needs approval of the Board . can be part of a policy. Q I see . Is there a process -- let me understand it . One needs approval from . the Board and one doesn't. What is the purpose of a policy? It A The purpose of a policy is something you abide by . It's a rule. Q A Q What is the purpose of the rule? To make sure there is consistency in what you do. Doesn't it set the standard for the district as to what conduct may be engaged in by the administration? A I hope so. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 44 I see . Isn't a regulation something to implement a policy? It can be part of a policy, yes. But a regulation itself is not a policy\nis it? A A regulation is separate from a policy but it can be part of a policy . Q Is Policy IL-Ra policy or part of a policy? A That is a Board policy that was approved by the Board . It is the comprehensive assessment process. Q I'll show you a policy that says IL-R. Is that the Board policy? A Q A Q A Q A Q It seems as if it's the policy, yes. Do you know whether that was approved by the Board? Yes, it was. When was it approved? December 2004. Were you present at the time? Yes. So there should be a motion and a second and all the other things that.approves it in that process? A I'm sure the minutes would reflect that. Q Now, if this is a policy it is supposed to be posted to the website\nisn't it? A It is posted. BY MR. HELLER: Should we make that an exhibit t.o his deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so we can see what we're talking about? BY MR. WALKER: Yes. We'll make copies and give it to you. BY MR. WALKER: Q Now, is there a difference between the program evaluation 45 agenda, which also has JL-R as its code and what will be to your deposition Exhibit 3, is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference? A Q is? A Q I don't know what this is. In other words, Exhibit 3, you 're not aware of what that I'm familiar with this , yes . And you're not aware whether Exhibit 3 is posted on your website? A I'm only familiar with this, yes. Q So it's your position that the document that is entitled as . Comprehensive Program Assessment Process is posted, not the Program Evaluation Agenda\nis that right? A I'm aware of this, yes. Q And you 're referring to Exhibit 2, Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A Yes . Q Thank you. Now, you don 't know what number three is at all? You've never seen it before? A Not to my recollection. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 - ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see. A I see a lot of stuff. Q Let's get to your testimony about evaluation. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirements with respect to program evaluation? 46 A Mr. Armstrong met with legal counsel the first week or two he was on board . Q My question is you. I'm talking about you. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirement? A I have not talked-with Mr. Armstrong about that document, no. Q I see . Have you heard Mr. Armstrong express in a public place -- you were aware that he ran for office? A Yes. Q And were you aware that he ran for office in part for the purpose of focusing attention upon the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? Were you aware of that? A I heard him talk about the achievement of students, yes. Q Okay. At the time that he was talking about the achievement of students, is it or is it not to true that you were aware that I was in the audience? A I'm not aware of that, no . Q Did he ask that Dr. DeJarnette or did any Board member ask that Dr . DeJarnette provide information to the Board regarding BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation? A Q Dr. DeJarnette did report to the Board . My question was: Was this on the initiative of some Board member? A Q I 'm not sure I follow your question . Do you not recall sending an e - mail to Dr . DeJarnette indicating that the Board members had some questions regarding prQgram evaluation? A Q Yes . And is it fair to say that that e--mail was approximately dated November 3rd, 2006? A Q I would have to see it but -- If the Board members requested information from Dr. DeJarnette regarding program evaluation, would it have been appropriate for her to have responded at the public meeting to their concerns? A Q If they asked that, yes. I see. You were aware that they did ask it\nisn ' t that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes . Which Board member asked you to ask that? I think there were two . Who were they? Dr. Mitchell and Mr . Berkley. I see. Now, did they tell you why they wanted her to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 47  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 address the issue of program evaluation? A I don't recall. Q That was just in October or November. Are you saying that less than six weeks ago you have no recollection of what they told you? A Dr . Mitchell and Mr . Berkley asked for the report I believe because there was some disagreement in some information that had been shared _with them, with the whole Board, in factj I think . Q I'll show you an e - mail dated November 2nd and a response on November 6th regarding the evaluation. Do you recall that? November 2nd from 'you . It says, \"Olivine , Please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the Board has requested a compliance reme9y update at the November 9 agenda meeting. That presentation should also involve other members of PRE. Everyone in the department should be available that evening \". A Yes. Q You sent that? A Yes, I did. Q- Did yo_u expect her to give an honest appraisal or presentation to the Board of Directors at that time? A I would hope so. Q I see . Now, did you inform the Board, the other Board members, that the request for Dr. DeJarnette to appear before it had come from at least two of them? A They were there that night . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 49 Q I understand they were there that night but did you , before they got there, inform them that the Board members had initiated the request that Dr . DeJarnette make an appearance and presentation to the Board? A I didn't see it necessary . They were all there that night . Q I see . But you understood that at that meeting that night that Mr . Baker Kurrus raised the question of Dr. DeJarnette coming directly to the Board with her presentation. Do you recall that? A No, I don ' t recall that. I think that ' s taken out of context. I think what Mr . Kurrus said that night, as I recall, was Dr . DeJarnette providing information to Board members and everybody else without going through appropriate protocol. Q All right . What was the appropriate protocol after the Board requested the update? A Q I think we ' re . talking about two different things. Tell me what the protocol was that she was required to follow according to Mr. Kurrus . A I think we're talking about two different things. We need . to clarify - - Q was A Q I'm talking about Mr. Kurrus' response . Your answer to me Are you talking about Mr. Kurrus' response that night? Yes, that night. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 -23 24 25 I I A At the Board meeting? Q Yes. You're saying that Mr. Kurrus was dealing with protocol\nis that correct? A Yes. Q What did he understand, according to what you understood, the proper protocol to have been? A To go through the proper chain of command . Q What was that? A Dr. Roberts. Q And then whom? A Mr. Hattabaugh. Q And then whom? A Me. Q Before going to the Board? A Before presenting to the Board? Q Yes. A We're talking about information. That information was shared that was inconsistent with the chain of command and protocol. Q What information was shared with the Board that was not shared with Dr. Roberts or Mr. Hattabaugh or you by Dr . DeJarnette? 50 A I'm not sure I know what information you're talking about. You tell me what information and I could -- Q You're saying that she did not f o llow protocol and that she 9USHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 went directly to the Board\nis that correct? A Q Yes . So what information did she present to the Board that had 51 not previously been given to you , Dr . Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts? A You have to help me here . Tell me exactly what information are you referring to and then I can help you , then I can answer your question . Q You ' re saying that when she went to the Board directly she did follow protocol , according to Mr . Baker Kurrus . Now , what information did she provide to the Board that had not been previously provided to you by her? What information? A Did she provide - - Q To the Board that had not been previously provided to you . A She sent a letter to the Board that I had never seen before. Q A Q A Q Was it dated after November 2nd? I don't remember what date it was. And what did the letter say? I don't remember exactly . What do you understand the content or the substance of the letter to have said? A I think the substance of the letter was to imply that the Board had not been given all of the information which was false and erroneous and to also suggest that what was turned in was not factual and accurate, which was also false and erroneous . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 Q I see . It was turned in to whom? A Provided to the Board in a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell . Q I see . Now, so you're saying that she should not have written a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell? A I'm not saying she shouldn't have written the letter . Q You ' re saying that she should have provided accurate information? A I'm saying that her actions with that information going to the Board after something had been submitted to you and the Court and everyone else gave me reason to believe that something improper was going on here. Q What was improper that was going on? A To send a letter to the president of the Board and to other Board members that had very little or no factual basis. Q Let ' s just deal with that for a moment. What was it that had no factual basis? A I think the letter and report -- Q Just the contents of the letter as you recall it . Just identify the things that -- A I can ' t identify the specifics of that letter. If you put it in front of me - - Q All right . Since I don't have that letter can you tell me whether she indicated that program evaluations had not been embedded in the curriculum? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I don't have the letter in front of me. Did she indicate that program evaluations had not been embedded in the assessment and evaluation process? A I don't know if that was in the letter . It was not accurate. 53 Q I see. Tell me this: Has program assessment been embedded, in your opinion , in the fabric of the school district? A I think that - - Q A Q That's yes or no. Yes. All right . Tell me how it has been embedded, please. A I think it's a part of our process to use data and to look r at programs in terms of whether or not they are effective to determine if kids are learning . Q All right. Tell me what is your definition of embedded in the process . A Being able to provide data and information to determin~ the effectiveness of the programs, particularly those programs that were a part of the Court order, to determine whether or not we're getting the desired results. Q How do you embed something? I'm not talking about how you use it. How do you embed it? How did you expect it to be embedded? A You embed it by it becoming a part of the actual pr0cess that you use to determine what you do. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 54 Tell me how the process is embedded in the school district at this time. A I think it's embedded because we have data now . We have information that can be used to determine whether or not something is being effective and, if it is, then certainly we want to continue to do it. Q A Where are those data at this moment? I'm talking about data as it relates to where kids are, test scores, etcetera. Q Where are those data maintained? I'm using data plural and that's why I'm saying are. A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Data is everywhere. Data is Just everywhere? Yeah. All right. It's at the schools. It's at the district level. I see. Now, is there a central source where it is? I think we're working to do that . There is a warehouse But you haven't done it? I think to a degree we have. I understand. What is the status of that at this time? What is the status of what you've just described at this time? A I think it's good. Q Good doesn't mean anyt hing to me. Is it complete? Is the data storage -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 -5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I don ' t think that nothing is as it relates to continuous improvement is ever complete. You continue to work . You continue to improve . 55 Q Doctor , is there a data warehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think there ' s a data warehouse that can provide the information that we need . Q Is there a data wa rehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think that there is a data warehouse that we can still work and make better . Q A Make better? Yes , sir . Q Going back to your memo dated November 2nd . Did Dr. Olivine Roberts tell you that she had asked Dr . DeJarnette to respond to the Board? A I would think she did . This is what she was asked to do . Q Is this the letter that Dr . DeJarnette sent in response to Dr . Mitchell ' s request that is dated November 3rd? Do you recall that? BY MR. HELLER : I ' ll object to the form of the question . recall anything about Dr . Mitchell ' s letter . BY MR. WALKER : Well, the request for Dr. Mitchell is the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I don ' t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 question. BY MR. BROOKS : This is interesting because I've never seen this letter . BY MR . WALKER : Q Can you tell me anything in that letter -- first of all , should that letter first have gone to Dr . Roberts for approva l? A Apparently it didn ' t . Q No . Should it have, according to protocol? A I think I would have , yes. She should have been aware of that. Q Is there anything in writing that requires that that level of protocol be-applied? A Yes, the chain of command . Q Is the chain of command in writing? A Q Yes , it ' s the organizational chart . Well , that ' s the chart but the chart just shows who reports to whom\ndoesn ' t it? A It certainly does . Q I see . Now , did you before that time ever require that any letter that came from Dr . DeJarnette be first given to Dr. Roberts? A I would hope so if it ' s going to the Board . Q If it's going anywhere is there a requirement that she cannot directly communicate to those persons that she feels BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessary, that ~s Dr . DeJarnette, that she feels necessary to be responded to? A I think this was a very aifferent circumstance here . 57 Q So you're saying that she should, after you have requested that she make a report to the Board , you are taking the position that she should have gone directly to Dr . Mitchell? A This was a situation where Dr. DeJarnette provided information that was not accurate and it was not proper . Q What was the information in that letter that you recall was not accurate? A I don't have it . Q Now, at the time that she sent this , she sent it to Mr . Heller\ndidn ' t she? A Q Mr . Heller has been copied. He ' ll have to answer . Now, she indicated first that she thought that there was some important information that the Board had not received directly from PRE on some occasions . A Q A Yes . Was that improper for her to say? And it was not factual . Q Well, how do you know that the Board had received information that all the Board members had received information directly from PRE? A I can only say that since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information direct from PRE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 on some occasions that this unusual delivery should be. That's not true . Q How do you know it IS not true? A All information relative to -- Q How do you know it I S not true? A Pardon me? Q How do you know it's not true? BY MR . HELLER: Let him answer . BY MR . WALKER: Q I'm not talking about what you normally do. You say you give information out that is given to you but now how do you know that it's not true that the Board did not receive some important direct information? How do you know that's not true? A No one has ever told me that the Board has not received all important information as it related to this compliance issue . Q All right . I'll just go to the next one. \"One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update\" . Was the last quarterly written update provided to the Board, the one dated September 1, 2006? That's yes or no. A Q A Q Here again, I -You don't know? (No audible response) All right. The second sentence -- is it true that you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 don't know? Is that fair to say? A I wouldn't say that . One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive the department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update Q Did you provide the Board the last written quarterly update dated September 1, 2006? That 's yes or no . A I would think so, yes . Q You would think so? A Q Yes. You don ' t know. A Yes . Q Okay. The version delivered to the superintendent's office for the Board's review is Appendix A. The version submitted to ODM omitted all of Section Band much of Section C\nisn ' t that correct? A What is correct? Q That there -- first of all, the version that was delivered by her to you all had been edited and then the edited version was submitted to ODM\nisn't that correct? A The version that was submitted was an accurate, factual version upon which Dr. DeJarnette, as I understand it, was in a meeting and agreed Q Please listen to my question . You had two different versions of this report\ndidn't you? A There was only one version submitted. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 Q Listen to my question. It is true that there were two different versions of this report\nisn't that correct? A There was only one version submitted -- BY MR. HELLER: Listen to his question . BY MR. WALKER: Q There were two different versions of this report\nwasn't there? A Yes. Q All right . The one that was submitted to you was given to Mr . Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A Q It was just not Mr. Heller. Whoever . But it was given to Mr. Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A It was just not Mr . Heller. Q Who else edited it? A It involved Dr . Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and I think input from other members of the PRE staff that had a different opinion about what was in this document and Dr . DeJarnette. It was just not Q Let me ask you: It is true that the version that she submitted to your office was not given to the Board\nisn't that correct? A Q Which version? The first version was edited, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 -5 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q And it was not given to the Board? A Exactly . We ' re not going to give the Board unfactual information . Q All right . Now , the first one she says , \"On these pages PRE described obstacles to the district's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its program\". A That ' s not true. 61 Q She says , \"it ' s omission from the update allows a reader ' s false i mpression that the district has progressed further than it has \". Now, is that not a conclusion that perhaps reasonable people can disagree with? A No, that ' s not true . Q What is not true? A Q A Q A What you just read. Well, it was the description That ' s her opinion . I understand . But it's not true . Q Isn ' t that what the Board members requested was her opinion? A Q A No . Let me ask you this - - The Board members expected factual information . It was her opinion. It was not the opinion of Or . Olivine Roberts. It was not the opinion of Hugh Hattabaugh. It was not the opinion of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our attorney and it was not the opinion of members in the PRE Department who work with her . This was her opinion . Q A Q Wasn't she -- Her opinion only. Wasn ' t she entitled to give, as a director of that department, her opinion to the Board? That's yes or no. A Q A No . All right . That ' s fine. Now Everybody has an opinion. We want facts given to the Board. Q Now, if the Board asks for opinions, isn't she obliged to give the opinion? A Facts. That's what we give to the Board . I can give an opinion to the Board. You can give an opinion. Q If the Board asks for an opinion -BY MR. HELLER: Just answer the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q If the Board asks for an opinion from one of your staff members regarding that person's best professional judgment -- A Then that's fine. Q Isn't that what the Board asked? A Not from her, sir. Q They did not? A No, sir. This is a very important document. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Now , \"another reason for submitting this document to you is a probable absence by two of our department ' s members on November 9\". Is that correct? A I think there were a couple of people out for whatever reason or another . Q I see . So you object to her conclusion that the district may give, by what it is submitted, a false impression that the district has progressed further than it , in fact, has? A I object to anyone in the organization who is producing and giving a document that is not factual . Q Now , has any of the other quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A Q We review all the quarterly reports . Listen to my question . Had any of the previous quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A I 'm sure someone has . If it wasn't Mr. Heller, it was someone else . Q Did you direct Mr . Hattabaugh or Mr . Heller to edit this _,,)\nreport that had been delivered to you by Dr . DeJarnette? A I asked Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and Mr. Heller to make sure and assure me that the information that we were going to submit to the Board for approval to be submitted to the Court was accurate and was truthful, yes, I did that . Q Isn't it true that Mr . Heller informed you and other people that it wasn't that the information was not accurate, it was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that it was unnecessary to provide to the Court? A Q There was some information Listen to my question . BY MR . HELLER : Let him answer the question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A There was not only information that was not necessary, there was information that was not accurate and there was information that was not factual . Q What information was not accurate? A Some information regarding the Arkansas Department of 64 Education , some information regarding the programs, some information regarding Tetra data as it relates to business objects was not only not factual but it was untruthful and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. I was not happy about it. Q Where does she say anything in here about Tetra data? A That was all a part of the report that you were asking me about. Q All right. So that was in the initial report\nis that fair to say, that was taken out by Mr . Heller? A Mr . Heller did not just alone do that. Q A Can you tell me Let me finish. It was -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I understand what your answer is . Now, can you tell me what portions of the report were edited by Dr. Roberts? A It was a team effort. Q A Q Can you tell me? Dr. Roberts -- Please listen to my question. 65 A --Mr. Hattabaugh, Mr . Heller, people in the PRE Department all working together to make sure that the information that was provided to the Board was accurate and was factual because this was a very important document. It's not one person that Dr. DeJarnette has tried to create that really is all encompassing to do this. That's not how we operate in this district. I'm sorry people felt that way. BY MR. HELLER: Just answer his question. Do you know any particular part that Dr. Roberts edited? BY MR . WALKER: Q A Q Do you know what part of the report -I wasn't in the meeting, no. I see. Did anybody ever report to you the parts that they individually edited? A Not on an individual basis, no. Q I see. She submitted one report and that was edited and then the edited report was sent to the ODM and it would be useful for the Board to have both reports\nthat's what she said BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 wasn't it? A That's what she said in the letter . Q And you're saying that she should not have told the Board that there were two reports? You ' re saying that\naren't you? A Absolutely, because one report -- Q That 's fine . A -- was not accurate . Q All right . And she's saying that because one report has an commission it allows the false impression that the district has progressed further than it has . That's what she said\nright? And you disagree with that? A In the letter, yes . Q I see . All right . Now, you ' re saying that she should not have told the district that one report may give a false impression? She should not have said that to the Board\nis that your position? A If it were not true . Q All right. Isn't it for the Board to determine whether or not one report gave a false impression rather than the other? Isn't that the Board's duty? A The Board relies on us, the staff, to be able to make sure that information we bring to them is accurate and is factual. Q A Q Now, you understand that -I hope they do. --the present Board members have questioned your judgment, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 some of them , both in the election and thereafter? You understand that\ndon't you? You don ' t understand that? A I understand it and that ' s fine . That ' s their opinion . Q Now , didn't they tell you that they wanted to get this information and that was after the e lection? Di dn ' t they tell you that . they wanted to find out what Dr . DeJarnette was actually saying be fore a court date was actually attended? A That ' s when we -- 67 Q And if they asked what i s the status and they wanted to get her view, as opposed to yours , is there some reason that you would disallow that? A It's not a view. It ' s a staff working together . It ' s many people making sure that the information provided is accurate . Not one person -- if the Board wants to believe one person then that ' s their opinion . Q That's right. But now the Board, if ,they had wanted to have Dr . Ed Williams' view , they could have asked for that\ncouldn ' t they? A I think they asked for that . Q Well, did they ask for that - - they asked for Dr . DeJarnette's view\ndidn ' t they? A The presentation should involve other members of the PRE staff . BY MR . HELLER : We're two hours into a 15 to 30 minute deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now. BY MR. WALKER : Well, let me just sort of finish. BY MR . WALKER: Q You do acknowledge that it was within their prerogative to ask her any question they wanted to\nisn't that correct? A Oh, sure . Q I see. And if they had asked the question were there two reports and she had said yes, there would have been no problem with that\nisn't that correct? A Yeah . Q And if she had said that the matter had been edited and that it gives a false impression, there would have been nothing wrong with that, in her opinion? A In her opinion, yes . Q And then you would have been in a position -to state your contrary opinion to the Board\nwouldn't you? A I think that happened . Q When have you stated your contrary opinion to the Board? A The revised repor~. Q The revised report? A Yes. Q So that's what you were saying to the Board at the time\nright? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 69 Q Now, let me go on to some other things about you . Have you ever spoken to Dr. Victoria Burnhart , personally? A No. Q I see . So you ' re not aware of who she is or what she does? A I know she works with us . Q Do you know of any of her qua l ifications? A No . Q I see . You disagree with Dr . DeJarnette that the process of the school district has not been embedded into its assessment process? A Not I. Q I 'm asking about you . A No. Q Do you know anything about the portfolio ' s that were supposed to have been developed? A No. Q Were there any impediments that you knew of to implementing a data warehouse , any cost impediments to implementing that? A I 'm not aware of that . Q All right . Do you disagree that a data warehouse system is not now in place? A I think we have something in place . Q You have something . Would you call it a completed data warehouse? A To the extent practically, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 ' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 Q To the extent practically? A Yes. Q Are you aware that much of the information in one of these reports is based on false data? BY MR. HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q Are you? A What report? Q The report submitted to the Court . The evaluation report . A We submitted a truthful report to the Court. Q Let me ask you : Did you have occasion in September and October to meet several times with Dr . Ed Williams outside of the presence of Dr . DeJarnette? A Perhaps, yes. Q Let me ask you now: Did you ever speak with Dr . Steven Ross regarding anything connected herewith? A No . Q Did Mr. John Ruffin have any role with respect to any of this? A Not that I know of. Q Did you ever speak with Mr. James Wohlleb? A Yeah, I've spoken with James before. Q Were you aware that Mr . Wohlleb and Dr. DeJarnette hired their own lawyers on or about November 3rd or before? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING ( 501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 A I know Dr . DeJarnette did . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette -- she's indicated that you said several things to her to express displeasure with her work performance . Did that happen before November 3rd? BY MR. HELLER: Object to the form. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer. A Dr. Roberts is the person that evaluates Dr. DeJarnette . Q I'm asking about you. Did you ever express displeasure with the work performance of Dr. DeJarnette? A I don't recall doing that, no, sir. Q All right. Now , have you ever given her a written evaluation before November of her work performance? A No, sir . Q Have you ever approved one? A Q No , sir. Have you ever seen one? A No, sir . Q Isn't it true that she was recommended for renewal at the end of the 2005-2006 school year? A Yes, sir. Q So that meant at that time that her work performance was satisfactory? A At that time, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ,1 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 Q All right. I take it you haven ' t had any direct discussions with Mr. Armstrong or any of the other Board members regarding your decision to remove her temporarily for her position\nis that correct? A No . Q All right . Who is the present director of the department? A There is an interim director . Q Who is that person? A Dr. Ed Williams . Q Was that position posted before you put him in it? A I t ' s not a vacancy, sir. Q Was it posted? A It ' s not a vacancy . Q Was there another position in PRE posted upon his being placed as interim director? A Yes , sir . Q Who made the decision to post another position? A We did. Q Who is we? Did you make that decision? A Dr . Roberts, Mr . Hattabaugh, and, yes, I was involved. Q Was that a position for a statistician? A Yes, sir. Q Was that the position that Mr . Williams formerly held? A Yes, sir . Q Did you all make a judgement that there was a need for a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ~ -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 73 second statistician? A Yes, sir. We wanted the department to have what they needed . Q So you wanted to have two statisticians in the department at this time? A We have three. Q All right. Let's assume that Dr . DeJarnette is reinstated . What happens to Dr . Williams? Does he go back to his former position? A We can't make a decision about that now . Q I see . But at this point it is intended that Dr . Williams will go back to his former position? A We haven ' t made a decision, sir . Q Is it his position that you all are advertising for to be filled? A It's the position he held , yes. Q I see . All right . BY MR. WALKER: I don't have any more questions. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Dr. Brooks, with respect to Exhibit 4, the letter to Dr. Mitchell from Dr . DeJarnette, it references an accompanying document . Was there an accompanying document? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 74 Was that document called the Compliance History 2004-2006? I think so, yes. Okay. And were there things in the accompanying document to which you objected? A Yes, sir . Q Did Dr. DeJarnette have a grievance pending at the time on November 3rd, 2006? A Yes, sir. Q Did the submission of the letter, which is Exhibit 4, and the accompanying document violate the district's policy with respect to processing grievances? A Yes, it did, sir. Q Okay. BY MR: HELLER: That's all I have . BY MR. WALKER: I want to make sure I have not gone into her grievance. I'm not representing her and I don't have any questions about her grievan~e and I didn't ask any questions about it. I don't have any questions . WHEREUPON, the deposition of Mr . Brooks concluded at 12 : 05 p.m . , December 13th, 2006. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 -5 110 I 75 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS , )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I, KELLY S. ADCOCK, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability, taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 17th day of December 2006 . KELLY S . DCOC~ Certified Court Reporter #643 My Commission Expires : 04 / 15 / 14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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\u003eBushman Court Reporting\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_1421","title":"\"2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2006-12-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1421"],"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":["172 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_66","title":"Willie Jefferson oral history interview, 2006 December 11","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, Allen University, 34.01071, -81.02037","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, 33.91617, -80.38232","United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, Mayesville, Mayesville Institute"],"dcterms_creator":["Jefferson, Willie M., 1927? -"],"dc_date":["2006-12-11"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Willie M. Jefferson discusses his educational experiences at Mayesville Institute in Mayesville, South Carolina, the school's 160 acre farm, classes in blacksmithing, masonry, carpentry, graduating in 1946, attending Allen University, teaching at Booker T. Washington High School in Columbia, becoming principal at Dennis High School and Mt. Pleasant High School (both in Lee County), and later becoming an Assistant Superintendent. Willie M. Jefferson was born in 1927. Tom Crosby interviewed Willie Jefferson on December 11, 2006. Interview covers Jefferson's education at the Mayesville Institute from the mid 1930s until 1943 and at Allen University (Columbia, S.C.) from 1943 to 1946."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Jefferson, William 11Dec2006 CROS 001"],"dcterms_subject":["Jefferson, Willie M.--Interviews","Booker T. Washington High School (Columbia, S.C.)--Faculty--Interviews","Mayesville Institute (Mayesville, S.C.)--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","Allen University--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews","African American school administrators--South Carolina--Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Sumter County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Willie Jefferson oral history interview, 2006 December 11"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/66"],"dcterms_temporal":["1930/1938","1939/1945"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (69 min., 59 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (69 min., 59 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_133","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/133"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III JAN - 3 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, ar # 922 1 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 20, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 M~ Scott Smith I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet arid M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773, 105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued} A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT.  In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January: On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field servicerepresentatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NGA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NGA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, 'The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) A!gebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on . \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 59 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchm\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1788","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","School board members","School principals","Franklin Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Cloverdale Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1788"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["98 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, notice for substitution of counsel; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Implementation of the Staffing Provisions of Plan 2000''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \u0026gt; I :e I Ut.C. 8.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 JOHN W. WALKERJ P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Lirrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (50/) 374--3758 Fa.~ (501) J7-l--1187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET P.1/12 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;{SOI) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contuned in th is facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidenti!l,l information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader oftl,is message is not the intended recipient, or the einployee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intctlded recipient. you are hereby notified that any di$semination, diSll'ibution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have   receive4 this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, ~d return the oriiinal message to us at the above address via the U.S. PoStal Service. Thank you. DEC. 8 .2006 1: 43PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AT'I'ORNEY AT LAW . 1'723 BROADWAY LlT'rL.8 Rocx, ARKANSAS 7.2.206 TELEPHONE (501) 374--3768 FAX(501)374:-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.eoui Honorable Judge William R Wtlson United States District Court Judge 6-00 West Capitol. Suite 423 Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201 Via Facsimile - 604--5149 December 8. 2006 N0.273 P.2/12 OFCOUNSEI., ROBERT M.eBENEY. P.A. DONNA J. Mu!ENRY 8210 Hi:NDER8oN ROAD Lrrru; Roa. ARKAN8A4 1l2lO 'PHONE: (501) 3'7l-34.25  FtJ. (501) 3'123428 Email: mcbamyd@swbell.net Re: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR ' Dear Judge Wtlson: Per the Court letter Order ofDecembet\" 6, 2006, Joshua Intervenors submit the following: - A. Witnesses: Mr. Charles Armstrong [25 minutesJ He will testify that he has not been informed by Dr. Roy Brooks of the Court's requirements, of the district's activities regarding program evaluation and assessment; that it appears that the district does not focus its attention upon achievement of African Amerioan students and that he has no indication that program evaluation is embedded in the district's cuniculum and instructional programs. He wm. testify that it appears that the efforts of the district are devoted to creating an environment attractive to white students and their parents. He will also testify that when he and other board members sought information regarding program evaluation, the director was removed from her position; and that district counsel has not provided information to him regarding the process and the status of the 1 . - -------------------------- JJt.C. B.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P.3/ 12 district, s compliance, Dr. Victoria Bemb.ardt [ 45 minutes] She bas expertise in the preparation and I manipulation of school data bases, facilitating the assessment and evaluation of educational programs for effectiveness in buil~ student achievement. She provided training to PRE staff regarding such sY~~. She identified an existing \"data warehouse\" methodology designed for use in school systems; to facilitate their assessment and evaluation of programs for effectiveness in building student achievement. While presentations regarding this system were made to LRSD, it was not adopted. This system could have been operative in the LRSD by mid October, 2006 had it been adopted. MJ. Lisa Black (30 minutes] She will testify that she bas significant evaluation and assessment obligations for the LRSD and that her activities are unknown to PRE or ODM She will also testify that she bas refused to provide information to Joshua regarding the evaluation - and assessments undertaking that she performs for the LRSD, as a private contractor on the public payroll. Mr. Tom Brode [ 20 minutes] See description of Mr. Tony Rose's testimony below. Dr. Roy Brooks [30 minutes] His lack of knowledge about the court's requirements and PRE compliance efforts and his affirmative actions designed to dirlnish the supplying of imormation to ODM and Joshua regarding the status of compliance with the 2004 remedy. Ms. Diane Curry [ 25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that of newly elected fellow board member Charles Armstrong. Dr. Michael Daugherty [25 minutes] His testimony will be similar to that of fellow board members Cbarles Armstrong and Di~e Cuny, He VJill also testify that he is unaware of 2 JVHN W WHLK~~ ~ H N0.273 P.4/ 12 any spcci:.fic programs which have worked to sigoifiC3lltly improve the academic achievement of African American students in the LRSD. Dr. Karen DeJamette (2 hours] [l] The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [2] The LRSD assigned additional duties to PRE staff; a filctor which played a role in l..RSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of the LR.SD' cuni.culwn and instruction program. Thus: [aJ In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2\" evaluatio11$, ''PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, fonnulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. Building the abilities of the PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistanceof outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations ofLRSD. [b] LR.SD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress - .in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. It is and has been feasi'ble for LRSD to create one or more computer data bases allowing compilation and manipulation of many forms of data and variables. Such data and variables could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different r~ programs, taking account as well as student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [3] LR.SD' s \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school'' and \"district\"\" \"portfolios\" - compilations of data like that listed in paragraph (2-b] [E.g., updates of9-1-0S at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [a] Although L.RSD first mentioned \"school 3 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.S/ 12 portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9-1-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock: School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year,\" show that \"LR.SD expects to ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-0S school year.\" [ At 7, para. 14; emphasis added] [b] The quarterly update dated 12-1 05 states: '--\"Data to be included in the district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] One can not determined the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished from the LllSD' s Revised Compliance Report,\" 10-25-06 at 6-7]. [4] The quarterly update of12-1..05 states (at 3): \"PRE is slso investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are - . currently developing.\" The (lllarterly updm:e of3-l--06 states (at 3): \"To suppon the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been finlctioning as one of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para., 3 (a)J. Upper level LRSD administrator rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in panieular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [ls!.. at para. 3 (c)] No data warehouse system is in place. [5] Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy ofLRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., para. 2; para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\") [ 6] Some LRSD representatives censored the eighth update, prepared by 4 - -- -- - - ----------- - - - ------ - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA N0 . 273 P.6/ 12 PRE stat: to minimize the notice of some compliance probletQS noted in this document. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2. para., 4. PJ The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. See Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7(a) (The superintendent threatened . . . (the dismissal (of PRE' s Director] if she shared information with ODM or Joshua.\"). [8] The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the school system regarding the content of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. A$ a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Asrociate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. [9] The work of PRE staff bas been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments in the Compliance Remedy. See paragraph 7 of the PRE. \"Compliance History . \" [10] Upon her hiring as PRE Director and her reading of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, she - understood that she had major responsibilities flowing from the court's 2004 remedy. She sought to fulfill these responsioilities in a diligent manner, to provide information to ODM and Joshua Intervenors consistent with their responsibilities under the remedy, and to be frank and honest in reporting on the status of compliance. She perceives that she has been suspended and faces termination for her efforu. Ms. Ethel Dunb~ [15 mim.ltes] She is the principal ofFranklinElementary school, a racially identifiable elementary school. She has not received training on how she can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in her schools designed to improve African American achievement. She has not been illfonned that such portfolios are available for her use, or been provided assessments for programs at her school based upon the 5 JUHN W WHLK~~ PA N0.273 P .7/12 use of such materials by oth~ persons. Mr. Freddie Fields ( 15 minutes) He is the principal of Cloverdale Middle SchooL a racially identifiable middle school. He has not received the training on how be can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in bis school designed to improve Afiican American achievement. He has not been informed that such portfolios are available for his use, or been provided assessments of programs at hls school based on the use of such material by other persons. He is also not familiar with the SMART/THRIVE programs which the district has identmed as one of the programs that has been deeply imbedded with ongoing assessments. Ms. Mebnie Fox (25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that _of Mr. Armstrong and Ms. C\\lil'Y. She will also testify that she bas been integrally involved with district activities for three (3) years. Ms. Beverly Griffen [IO minutes] She will discuss her involvement regarding the posting of the gltl Quarterly Update for the Board review and comments. Mr. Gene Jones (45 minutes] He will discuss his monitoring efforts, ODM 's attempts to assist the district with the compliance requirements, his interaction '\\Jlith PRE staff, his awareness of the dilectory requests by district counsel for extensions for extensions of time, promises made for followup work by district counsel which were unmet, LRSD' s failure to embed the an effective evaluation ai:t\u0026lt;I assessment pr-ocess into the LRSD's curriculum and instructional programs, his awareness of upper level district officials unhappiness with Dr. DeJamette and their circumvention of her through use of Dr. Ed Williams in a way which 6 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.8/ 12 undermined and otherwise divided the PRE staff. He will discuss other failing'S of the district with respect to the court's order. Mr. Chris Heller [30 minutes] He will discuss: a) directions to PRE not to cooperate except through him with ODM and Joshua; b) his unavailability and unresponsiveness to PRE for assistance subsequent to the last hearing before the court; c) promises made to provide information to Joshua and ODM in August, 2006 which were not kept; d) his refusal to make timely requests for extensions of time in violation of the court's November 29, 2005 order; e) his rewriting the gill Quarterly report .so as to mislead the court and to distort the status of compliance as represented by PRE st.aft; his advice to senior administrators nt to cooperate with PRE, Joshua and ODM; and t) his recommendation to Dr. Brooks to terminate Dr. DeJarnette. Dr. Katherine M\"rtc:hell [30 minutes] She will address the same issues as the other board members and she will opine that the senior administration did not intend to fully comply ~h the - court's ordei-. Ms. Margie Powell [ 25 miuutes] -Her areas willoverlap those ofMr. Gene Jones. She ~ also ~lain how the district's failure to timely comply and to otherwise obstruct compliance worked to prevent the embedding of an effective evaluation and assessment process. She will also discuss Mr. Heller's editing the 81b Quanerly Update so as to delete pages 2-6 of the draft therefrom. Mr. Tony Rose [20 mimrtesJ He is a former member of the LR.SD Board who directed the administration to be negative to the cooperation of ODM and Joshua with respect to the Compliance Remedy. He will also testify that he never became aware of the progress of PRE activities after 2004 and that he requested no reports of PRE regarding compliance before 7 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.9/ 12 September, 2006. Joshua ~ill seek to establish that it was Mr. Rose's guidance to Dr. Brooks and senior administrators which helped to create a lack of diligent, good faith compliance with the 2004 compliance remedy by upper level administration. Moreover, he did not agree with the court's compliance remedy. Dr. Steven Rou (30 mimrtes] He and bis colleagues received full cooperation from Dr. DeJarnette and other members of the PRE staff: Upper level administrators exhibited disinterest in the evaluation process. In the course of completing the evaluations problems regarding inaccurate data arose. He will be asked about the descriptions of programs in the four 2005-2006 evaluations. He is unfamiliar regarding the activities undertaken by LRSD with respect to embedding the comprehensive assessment process. Mr. John Ruffin [15 minutes] He is the Director of Information Technology. He will testify that is unaware of any process that is complete or substantially complete which has - embedded the evaluation process into the district curriculum. He will also testify that bis office had only become involved in the process in the last 6 months and that he had no earthly idea of what the court bas required. Ms. Joy Spl'll;lgtr [l hour] She will testify in a manner consistent with b.er affidavit filed on June 28, 2006. Ms. Springer will provide testimony regarding her monitoring activities. She will also provide examples of information requests made on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors which LRSD did not respond. Mr. James Wohlleb [ 45 minutes] He will testify regarding PRE work activities, cooperation or lack thereof from the administration, failure of support by the administration, the importance of the process and how it is integral for raising the achievement level of the majority N0.273 P.10/ 12 of the students in the district. He will also address the administration's efforts to undcmune the leadership ofDr. DeJarnette. B. Exhibiq,_ The numbers indicated below may not be the order presented at the hearing. 1. Court's Order of June 30, 2004 2. Court's Order ofNpvember 29, 2005 3. LRSD' s Programs Interventions and Models in LRSD Schools 4. Guidelines for Completing Program Evaluations by Steven M. Ross, PhD 5. LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process NEPN Code: IL-R 6. LRSD Program Evaluation Agenda NEPN Code: IL-R posted on website . 7. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated March 17, 2005 8. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated May 24, 2005 9. Letter to Dr. DeJamette dated December I, 2005 10. Letter to Chris Heller dated October 3, 2006 11. Letter to Chris Heller dated Aui:,aust 17, 2 006 12. LRSD's Quarterly Update filed September 1, 2006 13. LRSD's draft Quanerly Update for September 1, 2006 14. LRSD's Compliance Report :filed October 16, 2006 15. Joshua Intervenors Objections to Compliance Report 16. Letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell dated 11/3/06 from Dr. DeJarnette w/atta.chments 17. Pre -K Literacy Evaluation pages 180, 192, 234 . 18. Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report (2005-2006) page 9 I -I N0 .273 P.11/12 19. Emails dated 7/14/06 between DeJamette and Griffen regarding status on compliance report with attachment 20. Cover Pages of the eight (8) Step 2 Evaluations 21. PRE Comments on 10-16-06 Compliance Report filed by Chris Heller 22. LRSD's Eight (8) Quarterly Report Updates 23. LRSD'sReorganization Audit dated March, 2005 24. LRSD Guiding Principles 25. Miscellaneous emails between PRE, district administration, district counsel and Joshua. 26. Joslwa reserves the right to introduce rebuttal exhibits regarding witnesses testimony. In addition, Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list based upon documents provided by LRSD counsel that was requested several weeks ago. - C. Matters regarding the Subject 9f Media Reports Dr. Roy Brooks has displaced Dr. Karen DeJarnette as Director of PRE, has placed Dr. Ed Williams in het position and has advertised Dr. Williams' position as a vacancy. He did so after the Board requested that she appear before it. Consequently Mr. Chris Heller and Dr. Brooks hired the Quattlebaum law firm to investigate a grievance that had been filed by Dr. DeJarnette. The matter became public when presented by Mr. Heller and Mr. Quattlebaum in a public meeting to the school board. Her grievance still pends. Joshua believes that appropriate grounds e\u0026gt;dst for the Court's intervention in that it appears that the Court's order is being flaunted by the adverse action which followed her response to the Board as requested by the Board and as required by the Court's order. Joshua reserves the right to address this matter 10 I I - Ut.l.... ts. C:~lab 1 : 4 f t-'M JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P. 12/ 12 subsequently in order that the Court's supremacy with respect to its orders be duly respected by those charged to implement it. Joshua notes that the Court pointedly directed counsel to be frugal and cost conscious in their representation of the LRSD. LRSD claims that economics required it to reduce PRE st.at: yet LR.SD appears to have given unlimited access to the district check book to the law firms involved for the purpose of undermining Dr. DeJarnette and PRE. D. Mr. Burnett and Mr; Ouattleb\u0026amp;wn It is not ne~ary for either of these gentlemen or their firms to be involved in this proceeding. Mr. Quattlebaum has absolutcly nothing to contribute to this endeavor. :Mt. Burnette is representing Dr. DeJamette individually. Her matter is not presently before the Court in that she has not exhausted her internal remedies as set forth by Arkansas state law. Undersigned counsel does not purport to represent her interests. All references to her interests - are made because of the proposition that those who do the work of the court, as a matter of public policy, cannot and should not be subject to retaliation or reprisal. JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Honorable Judge Thomas Ray . 11 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-1019 E-mail: scott. richardson@arkansasag.gov December 11 , 2006 Mr. Norman J. Chachklin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Find, Inc. New York 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818  Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear .Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of the Motion for Substitution of Counsel and Entry of Appearance that were filed in the above referenced matter. Please contact me at (501) 682-1019 if you have any questions or need additional information. SPR/pjd Sincerely, k~ Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street  Suite 1100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 682-2007  FAX (5 01 ) 682-2591 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL BNIHO!INOW NOl!Y93H93S30 ~03~,~~o 900Z SI J30 C3Al303~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel, states: 1. Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier has recently changed responsibilities in the Attorney General's Office. 2. Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson has been given responsibility as lead attorney for this case. WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requests that Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier be withdrawn from this case and that Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson be substituted in his stead and for all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTTP. RICHARDSON, BarNo. 01208 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Emai I: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier(a),arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkerattv@aol.com 2 I --- - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 3 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11 , 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, December 11 , 2006 10:34 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Motion to Substitute Attorney\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/11/2006 at 10:33 AM CST and filed on 12/ 11 /2006 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Arkansas, State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume,nt Number: 4073 Docket Text: MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of. (Richardson, Scott) The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l2/l l /2006] [FileNumber=799638-0 ] [13349957099b9f6d33537ed0032adf7a072d99abel28b653605d3b4ef5512956dbc fl dd4a4a350dfbf4 70dcdl b 1 beaefl 0dafe587da7725403debb l 3bal 80884]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/1 1/2006 , ' .. agcivil@arkansasag.gov ,. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, kate.jones@jlj .com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net, nrnoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little R;ock, AR 7220 i-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/11/2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 1211112006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, who is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Arkansas, hereby enters his appearance ih this case as counsel for Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfu11y submitted, MIKE BEEBE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.goy COUNSEL FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11 , 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMIECF system, which sha11 send notification of such filing to the following: .-- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 12/11/2006 Page, 2 of 3 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net  Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan . pkaplan@k!bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.riet Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty(@ao l.com I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11, 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed )2/11 /2006 .Page 3 of 3 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 . ( /s/ Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: / ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov \\ Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1 0: 31 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Appearance\" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/ 11 /2006 at 10:31 AM CST and filed on 12/11/2006 Case Name: Case Number: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas,. State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4072 ' -- Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Paris Richardson on behalf of Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of (Richardson, Scott) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: , [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l2/ l l /2006] [FileNurnber=799633-0 ] [9e40375cd08dc8 l ae09cDfe0866 l aabff78 l 613add66602 l 6dfb0el 85bf55c8ae5 d2ef8fe0de33306f01J787el4dl8ecf4e456ad8dab9d2cd2a7864e4cc5022]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com '- John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/11/2006 agci vil@arkansasag.gov - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! brnlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dociley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of 2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/ 11 /2006 II  II I I I I I I -  I I I I I I \"I I rr J:ILED f  ., u.l. DISTRICT couRr  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 12 2006 JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By I 2006-07 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE DEP CLERK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Horace R. Smith Monitor December 12, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager ' ' --- - ' ' -- .. -- I I I 1 -  -- - UPDATE ON THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STAFFING PROVISIONS OF PLAN 2000 . Margie L. Powell Monitor December 15, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Monitor : ~- IA8T~f J~ill~~SA8 DEC 15 2000 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By--------=o=EP=-c::-LERK= Gene Jones Monitor ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones  Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III JAN - 3 200j OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: .fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr .. Ben Mays, Clinton  Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, ar # 922 1 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December 20, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 . Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ll Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 kit~ Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court.  This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of1Eiecember 31, 2006  .m:.9iiJ5eJJoto1~uwiEia6lm\u0026amp;fi@aviiii6efaa12oaa~era@1aiwm State1Eouriaaticm$iindjrdlfllll:1~I\u0026lt;fflEoi'eittcf6etio8ijfagfflsJMUI B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED JAN - 3 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERJ.'-T DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVNORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION On June 30, 2004, the court instructed the parties to cooperate in addressing their concerns with respect to implementation of the Court's directive regarding assessing programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. The District appealed. The Court entered a separate Order to the effect that without or without an appeal the Court expected its Order to be implemented pendente lite. Rather than participate directly in the implementation process, Mr. Heller placed all of his eggs in one basket expecting the court's remedy to be overturned. Mr. Heller raised no questions regarding Joshua's continuing participation in the local PRE work until after the Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's Order. Ivfr. Heller and undersigned counsel had continuing disagreements regarding what information Joshua was to receive from PRE. Joshua, on the other hand, received its information in the same manner as it had previously done through October, 2006. Before that time, Mr. Heller did not 1 present to the Court any concerns that Joshua exceeded its bounds with respect to monitoring. Indeed, no motion to that effect has ever been filed. The instant proceeding is before the Court because :tvfr. Heller now has to regard the . interests of African American children and to provide more respect to the African American school board members than he did before. Before 2004, when the Court's remedy was set forth, Mr. Heller disregarded the two African American board members, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and Mr. Michael Daugherty. During the fall, Nfr. Heller opposed relief being sought by Nfr. Charles Armstrong and Ms. Dianne Curry with respect to their school board election campaigns. He continued to oppose those two board members until December 15, 2006 when an Order was entered dismissing their case intervention. He was in the unenviable position of opposing them in one action and representing them in another action. This appears to be a violation of ethics rules as well but is not being presented for the Court's present decision. Despite Nfr. Heller's antagonism to Nfr. Armstrong and Ms. Curry, they won school board seats. As of October, 2006, they joined Nfr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell to form a majority Africci American school board. It was only after this event that Nfr. Heller raised the issue of improper contact with his \"clients\" before the Court. The further background of this matter involves Dr. DeJarnette. Between June, 2006 and November, 2006, she made frequent complaints that she was being obstructed by the administration and not aided by Nfr. Heller in the PRE's efforts to comply with the Court 's order. The PRE's September draft report for the Court expressed PRE's concerns about noncompliance. The draft September report had initially been presented to the school administration in mid August, 2006. The response of:tvfr. Heller was to exclude from the Court 's 2 September final report the concerns which the PRE eA1Jressed in the draft report. When Mr. Heller learned that the September draft report had been shared with Joshua and ODM, he found no fault with that. (In the past, some draft reports had been shared with ODM and Joshua.) On August 4, 2006, Mr. Heller met with Joshua and ODM for more than an hour regarding concerns raised by Joshua to the effect that there were compliance issues outstanding. The meeting concluded upon l\\tfr. Heller's promise _that he would obtain further information regarding the issues raised by Joshua and ODM and that he would promptly get back ODM and Joshua. The meeting between Joshua and Heller was directed by the Court and coordinated by ODM in the manner contemplated by the Court. Despite his commitment, ]\\,fr. Heiler never met again with Joshua and ODM to further address the concerns presented at that c_ourt directed meeting. The Court subsequently inquired whether Joshua and LRSD were still at \"loggerheads\" to which Joshua replied in the affirmative. Mr. Heller's first acknowledgment of subsequent availability for the followup meeting came on November 1, 2006. See Exhibits 1 and 2. This was after newly elected Board President Dr. Katherine Mitchell requested that Dr. DeJarnette address the status of compliance with the Court's order and after the Board majority had shifted. At that point, Mr. Heller had been identified as an obstructor of the Court's Order and an accomplice of the school administration in seeking to retaliate against Dr. DeJarnette for sharing . her concerns with the Court, ODM, Joshua and the Board. What is before the Court are Joshua's objections to court release of the district because it has not complied with the letter and spirit of the Court's Order regarding program assessments. The sub-issues involve the following in Joshua's belief: 1) whether Mr. Heller deliberately delayed requesting an extension of time in which to comply with the Court's Order after Dr. 3 DeJ arnette made it known that the additional time was needed; 2) whether Dr. DeJ arnette' s proposed termination was retaliatory, i.e., undertaken for either or both punitive reasons and/or to discredit her when she testifies before the Court; and 3) whether the Joshua counsel and monitor acted outside the letter and the spirit of this Court's Order directing cooperation.1 The Court is being called upon to exclude the African American school board members and Dr. DeJamette as witnesses: \"that the Joshua Intervenors be prohibited from calling as witnesses at the January 20, 2007 hearing LRSD officials and personnel with whom Walker or Springer have had ex-parte communications related to LRSD's implementation of the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" page 9 (7) Joshua contends that this pleading is an effort to preclude Joshua's calling :tvrr. Heller as a witness in the forthcoming proceeding. For the disqualification of IV.Ir. Walker would effectively  moot the issue of whether Mr. Heller complied with the Court's order to cooperate with and support PRE in its implementation efforts. In the supplemental pleading before the Court, facts are urged by :tvrr. Heller which cannot be e~tablished without an evidentiary hearing because they are disputed. Much of the objection regarding attorney client privilege between Heller and DeJarnette has to be more carefully considered. At some point, Dr. Brooks became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette or at least she contends that. Did :tvrr. Heller continue to represent both of them during that adversariness. Mr. Heller also became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette because she 1 . The Order referred to by Judge Wright was entered during the midst of compliance hearings before her which had begun in July, 2001. She was concerned that while the matter was being heard by her there would not be any communication between Joshua counsel and school officials except by informing counsel in advance. That situation ended when those hearings ended. Her proposition as a general rule is understood and has been respected by counsel and Ms. Springer. 4 informed him that the district, in her opinion, was non compliant with the Court's orders. Dr. DeJamette then obtained her own counsel because she apparently was being threatened by Dr. Brooks for setting forth her honest views regarding the status of compliance in her discussions before the school administration and with ODM , Joshua and the Board. She then filed a grievance allegmg that the administration and 1'fr. Heller had taken adverse action against her due to her PRE responsibility to the Court. Undersigned counsel also came to represent Ms. Yvette Dillingham, a member of PRE, who was adversely affected by the school district's reorganization plan which took place in 2005. Did 1ifr. Heller represent her or did 1ifr. Walker represent her? Clearly, the question is not so easily to be determined. At most, it is to be said that N.fr. Heller represented Dr. Brooks and that Dr. Brooks and the Board were directly accountable to the Court. Dr. DeJamette became directly  accountable to the Court because of the specific orders of the Court. Indeed, 1ifr. Heller was also obliged to respect the Court's orders. The only \"party\" including counsel prior to the election of the two African American board members who sought to respect the orders of the Court was Dr. DeJamette. The others sought to obstruct it. . Joshua counsel should not be disqualified for bringing matters to the attention of the Court which are established by papers, public discussion, and exchanges of correspondence. Seldom is the public's legitimate business known only to a limited number of people. This is one of those cases. Clearly, the old Board was not concerned by its actions about effectively addressing the underachievement of African American students nor was LRSD counsel. Nor did LRSD counsel inform either Board of his private actions which involved his previous client, Dr. Ken James, former LRSD Superintendent of Schools and now Commissioner of Education for 5 - Arkansas, regarding negotiations to end magnet school and M to M transfer funding. - - The motion for contempt and to disqualify and its supplement to disqualify Joshua counsel should be dismissed because thereis no evidentiary basis to support either. If it is to be considered on the merits by the Court, an evidentiary hearing is respectfully requested. Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (facsimile) Respectfully submitted, Isl Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, JVIA 02421 781-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 29th day of December, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and mailed to the following persons: Mr. Gene Jones ODM 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 West Third Street Little Rocle, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S . District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 6 ;ent 01 / 11 / 2006 at 16:54:14 - from to 5013744187 p3/3 ~ SCHEL H. F1UDr\\i\" {19?:. ; 994) ..'1 N M . .ElSEMAfl, JR., :I.A,  A .. 8UITR~. P.A. .,iRICK S. t.~ SRY, P .. \\. J~ C. CL\\RK, JR.. P.,.i,. T HOMAS?. LEGG'ETT, P.A. JOHN OEWY WA.'t:mN, P .. -\\. PAUL B. S'ENHJ\\M 111. P.A. t r\\RRY \\V. BURKS,? .. '\\. ,-\\ , WYCKLlFF NTS'BET, fR., P .. a\\.. JAMES EOW t\\RD H.'\\RRts, P .. \\. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHPR'EJU) aussnr. Ill, P.A. OON . .UO H. BACON, [I.,\\. WILLIAM THOMAS 8AXTt:lt. ?,A. JOS\"E.i'H 8 . HURST. JR .. P.A. ELlZABETR ROBBEN MURRAY, P-~ CHRlSTOPRER HELLER. P.A. LAUlL-\\ ITENSt.\"EY SMini, P.A. ROBt::RTS. SHAF!l\\. P .. s\\, Wllt.lM,( ~l. GRl l-''FIS UI, P,A ~ICHAH S. ~ C ORE. P.i. WALTER M. on m. ?- \" 'K!Vl N' A. CR.ASS, P.A. WlLUAM A. WA.DDiLL.JR., P.A. SCOTT ). L,NCASTE.R. ?_'\\.. R08ERT 'B. 3EACH, JlL. P. A. J. UE 'BROWN, P.A. ).UIES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARR'! A- U GHT. P .. '\\. SCOTT H. TUCKER, ? . .-\\ .. Gl1Y ALTON WADE, ?.A. PRtCE C. OAR'DNER. P .. \\ . TONl,\\ P. JOl-Jts, I' . .\\, OAVtO D. WtLSON, P.A. JEFFltEY H. MOORE, P.A. OAVTO }.(. G'RA.f, Jl .. \\ . CARL..\\ CUNN'tts SJIAlNHOU'R, P.A. JON.\\NN C. CHlLES , P.A. R. CHRlSTOPHER L.\\WSON, P,A. BITTY ). DEMORY. P . .\\. Ll'l'f-OA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JtUO:S W. S\u0026gt;.(tTH, P .. \\. CLIFFORD VI , Pt.UNKlITT, P .. '\\.. DANIEL 1... HEJ\\RlNGTON, P.A.. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 - FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LJMJTED LIA.BIL!TY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm .com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LJTTL.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 50.13762011 FAX 501,JH-2147 1  15 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, .SUIT'S\" 103 F.l.YETTEVILLE.. ARKAM!5.AS 72703 .. -'111 TELEPMONE 471~eos.2011 FAX  7 t-H5-Z 147 November 1, 2006 J. MICH.UL rlICJ.'..l:NS, P.A. .MAR VlN L CHlLDERS X. COLEM.\"i.N WESTBROOK, JR., P.A. ALUSON ). CORNWEil.. P.A. '-. nl.'EN OWENS SMITH, P.A. JASON'!. HENDREN, P.A. :SRUC? B. TIDW'El.L. P.A. JOSEPH P. MC-~AY. P . .\\. ,\\UXANOR..._ .-\\. lFRhK, :P .A. JAY T. TAY!.OR. P .. , . MARTIN.\\.. K.-\\.n!N, P.A. BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. ~'lCHOLS 'if.OBERT T. SMm-t R. YAN A .. BOWM..-\\.N TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MlC'HE'LU .\\TOR. ?.A, JC-'..R.EN S. RAL11'ERT SAKAH b-l. COTTON \\.\"'RtSTEN S. ROWL\\.NOS .\\LAN G. BRYAN UNUSE.\\' MITCH..'\\M LORENCE. KHAY~AM M. :EDDlNGs_ VIA FACSILE and REGULAR lVIAIL Re: Meet and Confer Dear John: JOHN F. Pb15ER1C:1 AM.A'NOA CAPPS ROSE STI.VEN L BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNC, JR. JAMtE HUFFMAN JONE5 iCIMBIRLY l), r o UNG JASON N, BR.o\\.MLEIT BRlAN C. SMlt'H O. b-UCH.An ~,tOYE'RS S'Ent M. HAIN'ES CRI N!.. CULLUM KRlSTOl\u0026gt;HIR B. KNOX l\u0026lt;.\\.'I'HRYN A, 11'. RKPAT'RlC..: J. ADAM W!U.S U ,U'RA J, .\\SBUl\\Y 0 1 C:OVNSlL WlLLlhM H, SUTTO N, !',.\\ , \\l.'lll..1.1\\M \\.. TERRY WtLLMM l.. P,'\\TTO~. JR. H.T. LARn.LER.E. ?.A. OSCAR E. DA\\-7 S , JR. . .?.A. CRR.lSTOPHER H.t LLER 1.lrrL'E ROCK nL rn 1.Ji'O-U06 FAX S 0 1 ,l  -!5H  bcllu ci;(c,;.nct You now have our Compliance Report and have participated in the evaluation team meetings regarding Read 180, 21st Century and A+. You also have other information and documents from PRE concerning our compliance. I will be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss any compliance concerns you may have. It will be more difficult to anange a meeting and, I believe, beyond the scope of what the Court has required of us, if you continue to insist that LRSD Board Members and PRE staff be present. Please give me a call at your converuence. CJH/bk cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJarnette Margie Power Gene Jones Christopher Heller I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT I -.. JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS :tvir. Chris Heller FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Meet and Confer Dear Chris: - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Email: jphnwalkeratty@aol.com November 1, 2006 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD 1rrTLE ROCIC, ARl0u'ISAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net PRE staff has been accessible in the past when you have not been. why don't you try to arrange a time wheri they are available and share that time with ODM. We will try to accommodate it. It would be better in the late afternoon. I am not available on the following dates: November 3, 8, 13-17, 2006. JWW:js cc: Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Margie Powell Sincerely, ls/John W: Walker PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ;7.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"tws_oid16_33558","title":"Harmon Wray, 2006","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278541892"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Rhodes College","Law","Segregation","Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Harmon Wray, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33558"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1103","title":"\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of 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":["Quattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-","Shannon, Michael N.","Moore, Benecia B."],"dc_date":["2006-11-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of 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/1103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED NOV 2 1 2006 INDEPENDENT INVESTI~NfoRINI REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PREPARED BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE Q ATILEBAUM, GROOM 'Tuu \u0026amp; BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900  Lmle Rock, Arl.ansas 72201 II (501) 379-1700 QGTB OUATTlEBAUM, GROOMS, lULL \u0026amp; BURROW PUC \u0026gt; Q. po .... REC 'iVED NOV 2 1 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A GRIEVANCE BY DR. KAREN DeJARNETTE AND IN A DOCUMENT TITLED COMPLIANCE HISTORY 2004-2006: PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL \u0026amp; BURROWPLLC 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-379-1700 \u0026gt; Q. ?- N ,\nC. C. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 5 REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 19 I. QGTB ENGAGEMENT ........................................ ...................... ......... 19 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 21 III. A. B. Introduction ............................................................................... 21 The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command ...................... ...... .... 21 C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion ......................................... ....... 23 D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates ............................................................... 29 DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT .............. .............. 31 IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE ..... ... ............................ ................... 35 A. Documents Reviewed ............................................................... 35 B. Persons Interviewed .................................................................. 42 V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............... .............................................. 44 A. Timeline of Events .................................................................... 44 B. Factual Issues Identified ............................................................ 58 C. Discussion oflssues ..... ....................... ....... ........ ..................... .. 59 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update ........................................................... 60 a. What is an \"Update?\" .................... ........... .......... 60 b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process ............... 60 2  Q. p. N  Q. p. l,\n.l 2. 3. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update ................................. 61 d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website ................................................. 61 e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 64 f. August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 65 g. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting ........ 72 h. Instructed to Withhold Information ................... 76 Threats of Termination .................................................. 81 a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command ........................................................... 82 b. Direct Threats of Termination ............................ 85 I. ii. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article ..................................................... 85 Threats at Cabinet Meetings ................... 87 c. Indirect Threats of Termination ......................... 93 1. The Job Advertisement Incident.. ........... 93 11. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident ................................................... 94 111. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks .............................................. 95 Hostile Work Environment.. .......................................... 97 a. Direction of the PRE Staff ................................. 97 b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team ......... 99 c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office .................................... 101 d. Painters in PRE Offices .................................... 102 e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE ............................................. 104 4. PRE Compliance History Document.. ......................... 105 3  Q. ?- N .,,,. Q. Q. (.,.I 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data .............................................................................. 109 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance ........ 113 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 114 ADDENDUM Add. 1. Add. 2. Add. 3. Add. 4. Add. 5. Add. 6. Add. 7. Add. 8. QGTB Resume and Biographical Information Investigation Specific Organizational Chart Textual Comparison of the Eight Quruterly Updates Submitted to the District Court A Comparison of the Various Iterations of the Q8 Update Employee Relations Complaint Form (Grievance) - Ex. 127 Letter and attached PRE Compliance History Document -Ex. 147 PRE's Initial Draft of the Q8 Update - Ex. 69 Final and Filed Version of the Q8 Update - Ex. 123 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\"), identified six major issues during its investigation. Although some factual overlap between them is unavoidable, those major issues are: 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update\n2. 3. Alleged Threats of Termination\nClaims of a Hostile Work Environment\n4. The document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department\n5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy ofLRSD's Data\nand 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an abbreviated discussion of the factual disputes concerning these issues. A more detailed discussion of these disputes with accompanying cites to interview transcripts and exhibits can be found at section V. C. of this report. 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update The United States District Court' for the Eastern District of Arkansas (\"the Court\") was tasked with overseeing the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The Court ordered certain program evaluations as part of the desegregation compliance remedy. In its June 30, 2004, Order (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), the Court required the LRSD was to submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") eight Quarterly Updates regarding the status of the Court 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 5 ..... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N ordered program evaluations. A disagreement arose between the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\") and administration officials regarding the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\"), which was to be submitted to the Court on or before September I, 2006. The dispute within the LRSD regarding the Q8 Update centered on what information should be included in the Q8 Update and whether the removal of certain information from the draft Q8 Update was proper. PRE was of the opinion the information removed from the draft Q8 Update should be provided to the LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") and the Court. LRSD administration officials and LRSD outside counsel were of the opinion that the information should not be included in the Q8 Update. Certain staff members in the PRE department, including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the Director of PRE, believed that all of the information included in the draft Q8 Update was crucial for the Board and the Court's consideration. PRE viewed the Q8 Update as an opportunity to present a comprehensive report to the Board and the Court. PRE included information in the draft Q8 Update TetraData, a \"warehouse\" of student data that PRE recommended but LRSD decided not to purchase. PRE also included concerns about the accuracy of the student data gathered and whether LRSD had a comprehensive program to verify the accuracy of student data. Further, PRE included a discussion of its attempts to ensure timely receipt of data from the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, additional \"programs\" other than the eight step 2 programs identified in the 2004 Compliance Remedy were included in PRE's draft Q8 Update. 6 ....  Q. Q. N ,\n,\nQ. Q. n Administration officials and LRSD counsel disagreed with PRE about whether these issues should be included in the Q8 Update submitted to the Board and the Court. The administration was concerned that PRE had chosen to air \"in-house\" disputes that were irrelevant to the evaluation process outlined in the 2004 Compliance Remedy, particularly the data \"warehouse\" issue and PRE's criticisms of the Arkansas Department of Education. Administration officials and Mr. Heller were also concerned that certain statements made by PRE were inaccurate and did not reflect the position of LRSD. Among these were statements regarding the accuracy of student data. Finally, administration officials and LRSD counsel were concerned that by including \"programs\" that were not among those being evaluated pursuant to the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD could be creating an additional obligation to evaluate extra programs in the future. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh's office to discuss the concerns of the administration and PRE regarding the draft Q8 Update. Also in attendance at the meeting were Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. DeJarnette's immediate supervisor, Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, Dr. DeJarnette, and three statisticians from PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Mr. Jim Wohlleb, and Ms. Maurecia Robinson. Both sides shared their opinions about whether the information should be included, and, at the end of the meeting, PRE was charged with incorporating suggestions made by the administration and redrafting the Q8 Update. Opinions within PRE on redrafting were not unanimous. It appears Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb believed that the draft should remain as it had been presented by PRE and that it was critical that all information be given to the Board and the Court. Dr. Williams was of the opinion that the edits suggested by the 7 ,. ti administration were clear and should be made. Ms. Robinson's opinion lay between these two, and she described her input as \"minimal.\" Initially, PRE sent a second draft of the Q8 Update that removed references to the additional \"programs.\" However, PRE stated that it was \"fuzzy\" on what other edits the administration wanted. PRE later reinstated references to the additional \"programs\" in a third draft of the Q8 Update that was circulated to the administration. Ultimately, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and removed the discussions of concern to the administration. Mr. Heller's edited version was submitted to the Board on August 24, 2006, and was approved. The approved Q8 Update was then filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. After the Q8 Update was filed with the Court, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with LRSD (\"the Grievance\"). In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had been directed by Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold from the Board, ODM, Joshua and the Court the information that was removed from PRE's draft Q8 Update. In addition, Dr. DeJarnette alleged that, on several occasions, Dr. Brooks threatened to terminate her employment if she shared information with Joshua or ODM. She also cited an e-mail dated August 17, 2006, from Mr. Heller wherein he instructed PRE not to discuss issues that will be litigated in December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in the desegregation case without counsel present. Dr. DeJarnette provided a copy of PRE's draft Q8 Update to Joshua and ODM on or about August 8, 2006, when she says that she first posted the draft Q8 Update to the Board's 8 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. n Novus Agenda website.2 Thus, the information that was removed by Mr. Heller had already been provided to ODM and Joshua. Dr. DeJarnette is of the opinion that PRE should openly share all information with Joshua and that the 2004 Compliance Remedy requires a free flow of information between PRE and Joshua. Regarding sharing information with ODM and Joshua, the administration's position is that all ODM requests should be honored without any need to involve counsel but that requests for information from Joshua should be coordinated through Mr. Hattabaugh or counsel. Also, the administration and Mr. Heller do not believe that drafts of the Q8 Updates were to be shared with Joshua until agreement on a final version for submission to the Board had been reached. Mr. Heller stated that no one was instructed to withhold information from the Court. According to Mr. Heller, information removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update could be presented to the Court through, for example, testimony at the hearing in December. 2. Threats of Termination Interviews conducted by QGTB revealed that LRSD personnel generally understand that following the designated \"chain of command\" is very important. LRSD personnel understand that information and concerns are to be presented to an individual's direct supervisor who, in turn, can then present that information to his or her supervisor. It is also clear that LRSD personnel have been told on several occasions by Dr. Brooks that issues 2 Items to be discussed at Board meetings are posted initially to the Board's Novus Agenda website by the persons in charge of the items. After posting, items are subject to approval by that person's immediate supervisor and then that person 's immediate supervisor and so on until approval by the Superintendent. !fall necessary approvals are obtained, the item becomes available for the Board's review and ultimately for review by the public at large. 9  Q. Q. N  Q. Q.  I. I. n discussed within LRSD should remain confidential and should be shared outside LRSD only through proper channels. Dr. DeJarnette's alleged threats of termination can be divided into direct and indirect threats. Dr. DeJarnette claims that she was directly threatened with termination (1) in a meeting with Dr. Brooks following an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and (2) by statements made at meetings of the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette article referenced statements made by Joy Springer in an affidavit, a paralegal for Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, that had been filed with the Court. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks called her into his office, showed her the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article and asked her to agree with him that Ms. Springer's statements were inaccurate. Dr. DeJarnette refused to do so and stated that she felt Ms. Springer had support for all the statements in her affidavit. Near the end of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalled that Dr. Roberts entered the room whereupon Dr. Brooks stated to Dr. Roberts that anyone who shared information with Joy Springer should be fired. Dr. DeJamette reports that Dr. Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks does not recall the meeting that Dr. DeJarnette describes or the specific article in the newspaper. He maintains that if he had had any concerns regarding an article, he would have expressed them to Mr. Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts. Similarly, Dr. Roberts does not recall the article or meeting with Dr. DeJarnette about an article. Regarding threats allegedly made during the Superintendent's cabinet meetings, Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks pointed his finger at her in front of all the cabinet members and said that he would fire her if she shared information with ODM or Joshua if it was the last thing he did. Dr. Brooks denies making any such statements. Dr. Brooks affirmed that 10 ,\nQ, Q, there is a general understanding that PRE staff members should not communicate the Court, Joshua or others extraneous information outside of the Updates to. Likewise, Dr. Roberts did not recall any threatening statements like those described by Dr. DeJamette being made at cabinet meetings. None of the cabinet members recalled Dr. Brooks making any statements about disclosure of information directly to Dr. DeJarnette in cabinet meetings. Some cabinet members recalled that Dr. Brooks generally expressed that termination was a possible consequence if information was improperly shared outside LRSD but did not recall those threats being made in connection with the desegregation litigation or Joshua. Some cabinet members did not recall any threats of termination by Dr. Brooks in cabinet meetings. The first indirect threat of termination reported by Dr. DeJarnette is her allegation that Dr. Brooks brought an advertisement for a position in the Buffalo, New York, school district into a cabinet meeting and, while handing it directly to her, suggested that \"someone\" from the cabinet should look into the job posting. Dr. Brooks did not recall giving a job description to Dr. DeJarnette specifically but stated that he frequently shared job openings at the cabinet meetings. No other cabinet member recalled any job advertisements being handed directly to Dr. DeJarnette. The next indirect threat reportedly occurred at a cabinet retreat held in the Regions Bank building. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks presented certificates to various cabinet members and when he presented hers, he stated to all cabinet members that he was sorry she had become an \"outsider.\" Dr. Brooks does not recall making these statements. Other cabinet members do not recall any negative statements being made to Dr. DeJarnette when the certificates were distributed at the cabinet retreat. However, one cabinet member recalled 11 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N Q. Q. n Dr. Brooks saying something \"different\" to Dr. DeJarnette during the presentation of her certificate. Next, Dr. DeJarnette states that she suffered indirect threats of termination in telephone calls from Dr. Brooks on three Friday afternoons in late October and early November wherein Dr. Brooks was very loud and angry. Dr. Brooks does not recall any phone conversations with Dr. DeJamette on the Fridays before November 3, 2006, but does recall phoning her after receiving the document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\") via e-mail from her. Dr. Brooks admitted being very frustrated during this phone call and asking Dr. DeJarnette who had authorized her to send a letter and the PRE Compliance History Document directly to the Board. In summary, there is a factual dispute about whether any direct or indirect threats of termination were made to Dr. DeJarnette. However, it appears that it was generally understood that information should only be shared outside LRSD if done through appropriate channels. It also appears that there was a general understanding that disciplinary action could result from sharing LRSD information with Joshua other than through counsel or other appropriate means. 3. Claims of Hostile Work Environment Dr. DeJarnette's claims of a hostile work environment began with the reorganization of the district in 2005 that resulted in Dr. Roberts replacing Dr. Brooks as her direct supervisor. In addition to the alleged threats of termination discussed above, Dr. DeJarnette related several instances of inappropriate conduct by Dr. Roberts and/or Dr. Brooks that contributed to her allegations of a hostile work environment. 12 \u0026gt; Q. p. ,,,.. Q. Q. :::. p. n First, Dr. DeJarnette complained that administration officials directed PRE staff without her knowledge. Examples include administrative officials inviting Dr. Williams' to a cabinet meeting and referencing Dr. Williams as a manager or leader of certain PRE projects. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Brooks and Walter Hussman took Dr. Williams to dinner in May of 2006 to discuss a particular program. Also, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Dr. Roberts went directly to Dr. Williams for information about certain PRE programs. Dr. Brooks recalls speaking with Dr. Williams regarding certain PRE programs and evaluations. He also recalls that Dr. Williams attended a cabinet meeting to provide his expertise on a particular subject. Dr. Brooks stated that it is not necessary for him to inform Dr. DeJarnette of these matters because he has the authority to go directly to the source that he knows has information. Dr. Roberts stated that she may communicate directly with PRE staff if necessary but that this was not a regular occurrence. Dr. Roberts also recalled that Dr. Brooks invited Dr. Williams to attend a cabinet meeting and give a report. Next, Dr. DeJarnette complained that certain personnel positions were eliminated from PRE that have made it difficult for PRE to operate adequately. The administrative assistant was cut completely. The testing coordinator position was first reduced to an elevenmonth position which, according to Dr. DeJarnette, caused the person occupying that position to resign. According to Dr. DeJarnette, the testing coordinator position was not filled for fourteen months although Dr. Hattabaugh did reinstate the position to a twelve-month contract. Administration officials stated that Dr. DeJarnette was on the transition team charged with determining where personnel cuts would be made and that she recommended 13 ,\nQ. Q.  L, \" eliminating the administrative assistant position without hesitancy. Other members of the transition team do not recall any specific comments from Dr. DeJarnette regarding cutting the administrative assistant position although at least one member reported that Dr. DeJarnette did not have a good relationship with the administrative assistant. Administration officials also contradict Dr. DeJarnette's statement concerning why the person in the testing coordinator position left the LRSD. According to them, the testing coordinator left to take an assistant principal position in the Pulaski County Special School District. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Roberts unnecessarily moved persons from the Gifted and Talented department into her office despite an available office next door and that Dr. Roberts moved painters into a room that contained secured testing materials. According to Dr. DeJarnette, her department may be reprimanded because certain testing information was lost when she was forced to move the testing materials. Dr. Roberts states that she asked Dr. DeJarnette if it would be permissible to temporarily locate the Gifted and Talented personnel in her office and that they were moved out after Dr. DeJarnette complained. Dr. Roberts does not recall Dr. DeJarnette expressing any concern about the secured testing materials in the painters' room. Dr. Hattabaugh recalls mediating a dispute in his office on these issues between Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette. 4. The PRE Compliance History Document On November, 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette sent to the Board a letter with the PRE Compliance History Document attached. The PRE Compliance History Document contained detailed information regarding topics that were removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. It also included discussions of errors in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court in October 2006, statement concerning difficulty in cooperation between LRSD and PRE, and 14 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. L. n allegations regarding threats of termination to Dr. DeJarnette. And recommendations for Board action were also included. According to Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb, the PRE Compliance History Document was prepared because it was imperative that the Board be advised of the obstacles to the LRSD's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. Dr. Williams stated that he would not have provided the PRE Compliance History Document to the Board and would have used it for internal discussions only. Dr. Williams also disagreed with many statements in the document. Ms. Robinson voiced some concerns with the document including her feelings that a lot of the information could not be supported with evidence and was based on hearsay. 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data One of the issues addressed in both PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and the PRE Compliance History Document concerns the accuracy ofLRSD's student-related data and the effect on the reliability of LRSD's eight step 2 program evaluations provided to the Board and the Court. PRE states that the extent of errors in LRSD data is unknown, and, therefore, any evaluations based on that data are unreliable. According to PRE, a comprehensive procedure needs to be developed by an outside consultant to address measuring and guarding the accuracy of the data. PRE also is concerned by the fact that LRSD elected not to purchase a data warehousing program titled TetraData that PRE claims would have been operational by the end of the Court's two-year monitoring period. According to PRE, it is unclear when the 15 11 data warehouse vendor selected by LRSD will be able to implement sufficiently its program to support PRE's data needs. Administration officials and certain persons within PRE take issue with the concerns about data accuracy. Generally, these persons state that the student data has never been perfect and that it is better now than it has been in the past. They also assert that PRE has been unable to identify any specific problems with the data. They suggest that PRE's complaints are not valid. Concerns from the administration about the TetraData product included (1) that the expert recommending the product to PRE was also on the Board of Directors of the company selling the software, (2) that the data would reside on space leased from the vendor instead of LRSD servers, and (3) that LRSD has had a long-standing relationship with the vendor chosen by LRSD to implement the requested data warehouse by expanding on data programs already in place at LRSD. One of the outside evaluators hired by LRSD to perform some of the step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not identify any significant problems with the data. That evaluator stated that the data had been substantially accurate and did not affect his findings in any meaningful way. 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The final issue discussed in this report concerns Dr. DeJarnette's claims that LRSD was not responsive to the Grievance. According to Dr. DeJarnette, she filed the Grievance in order to get an audience with the Board to discuss the issues removed from the draft Q8 Update prepared by PRE. Dr. DeJarnette expected that her Grievance would be addressed within five days of filing. When her Grievance was not dealt with in a timely manner, PRE 16  0. 0. N  Q. Q. t..J drafted the PRE Compliance History Document. The PRE Compliance History Document was then sent to the Board on November 3, 2006. Mr. David Hartz, LRSD's Director of Human Resources, was charged with processing Dr. DeJamette's grievance because of her relatively high position in LRSD. He states that he first met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 12, 2006, but had to end the meeting early because of his mother's illness and hospitalization. Mr. Hartz later met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 18, 2006. During that meeting, Mr. Hartz obtained general information from Dr. DeJarnette about the nature of her Grievance in order to determine the process that his department would employ in resolving the Grievance. Again, due to his mother's health, Dr. Hartz was unable to address the Grievance other than to touch base with Dr. DeJarnette to state that he had not forgotten about her and would soon schedule a meeting. After the PRE Compliance History Document was provided to the Board on November 3, 2006, Mr. Hartz was informed that the Grievance would be investigated by outside counsel and he wrote a letter to that effect to Dr. DeJarnette. 7. Conclusion This investigation included the examination of many documents and e-mail messages and interviews of persons who had a significant role in the facts relevant to the issues identified. It is beyond our engagement in this investigation to make or suggest any \"findings\" or determinations, regarding which side is right and which side is wrong. It is clear, however, that significant disagreement exists between administration officials and some PRE staff members about whether the issues identified in the PRE Compliance History Document are material to compliance by LRSD with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. There is also disagreement about the accuracy of data utilized by PRE and the accuracy and 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. vJ veracity of Dr. DeJarnette's complaints of threats of termination and a hostile work environment. Resolution of these points of dispute rests with the Board. While our time was limited, we have diligently endeavored to provide the Board with the information necessary to make informed and knowledgeable decisions regarding the issues necessary for Board action. We have attempted to report the facts in a thorough and disciplined manner, but we also encourage the Board to examine the exhibits and interview transcripts with regard to any issue or fact about which the Board may have questions. 18 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w REPORT I. OUR ENGAGEMENT Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\") was retained on Monday, November 6, 2006, by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to conduct an independent investigation of the facts relevant to the following: ( 1) the circumstances underlying an Employee Relations Complaint Form (\"Grievance\"), Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, filed by Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the director of LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\")\n(2) allegations regarding the withholding of information in the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8\nand (3) the circumstances regarding allegations included in a document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\"). Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") voted on November 9, 2006, at its regularly scheduled Agenda Meeting to authorize QGTB to continue its investigation and complete a written report. The events giving rise to our engagement include the filing of Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance as well as the delivery to the Board on November 3, 2006, of the PRE Compliance History Document, which contained additional allegations regarding the conduct of senior administration officials within LRSD and outside legal counsel for LRSD. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a detailed description of the allegations asserted, the investigation conducted, and the facts developed during the 19 ....  Q. Q. N\n, Q. Q. ,.. ::.. ~ /1 investigation. It is our intention to provide in this report a comprehensive review of the facts discovered from the interviews of nineteen witnesses and the examination of numerous documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses. The interviews of witnesses were recorded and unofficial transcripts of the interviews have been prepared and attached to this report. The documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses have been sorted, placed in chronological order ( except where certain documents were combined due to related subject matter), and included in separate binders as exhibits to this report. Certain documents of particular significance have been attached to the report in an addendum. This report, the Addendum and the exhibits have been scanned as electronic files in Adobe .pdf format and placed on compact discs that accompany each paper copy of this report. The electronic copy of the report includes interactive references which are hyperlinked to the exhibits and documents in the Addendum, allowing the reader to view the documents referenced. QGTB's investigation in this matter has been independent and without influence from anyone connected with LRSD, PRE, Joshua or ODM. No persons outside of QGTB have been allowed to review this report or make any changes to it prior to its presentation to the Board. The investigation was conducted by Steven W. Quattlebaum, Michael N. Shannon and Benecia B. Moore. A copy of the firm 's resume and the biographical information of the individuals named above is included in the Addendum. Add. 1. 20 \u0026gt; 0. 0. ....  0. Q. ~ ,. /l II. BACKGROUND A. Introduction This investigation is focused on claims of misconduct by certain LRSD officials and LRSD's outside counsel that allegedly occurred in connection with the performance of certain obligations imposed upon LRSD in the desegregation litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Thus, a basic understanding of the structure of the school district and the nature and origin of the obligations and functions of certain departments and positions within the administration is necessary. The following addresses and explains this basic background information. B. The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command The following organizational chart depicts the chain of command for the relevant witnesses interviewed in connection with this report. This organizational chart is not intended to depict all persons in the LRSD structure, but only those persons relevant to this investigation. A full page version of this chart is included in the Addendum as Add. 2. 21\n.. Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ /l Add. 2. Chris Heller Outside Counsel LRSO Or Sadie 'v\\1tchell Assoc Superintendent Elementary Education Karen Carter President of Principals Roondtable INVESTIGATION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART J~M1tt1ga Governmente,. Lagislet,ve. e. Pubhc Affairs Officer Sue11eri Venn Director Comm.1ntcat1ons tformer) Mark Milhollan Chief Fmancrdl orr1cer Dennis Glasgow SemorDlrector Curriculum Dr Ed W, 11ams Dstnct Sta11s11can cPREI Board of Directors LRSD Dr. Roy Brooks Supenntendent Hugh HattaMu!}h Deputy SUpenntendent Or Olivme Roberts Assoc \u0026amp;\np~mtendent Educa11onal SeMces Dr Karen DeJarnette Director Planning Research \u0026amp; Evalua11on Maurecia Robinson Oistnct Stat st1c1an (PRE1 Beverly Griffin Assistant to Dr Brooks Junious Bibbs Assoc Supenntendent Secondary Educat100 J1m\\l\\lohlleb Dio\ntnctSat1st1can tPREI [)f Linda Watson SeniorDtrtor Student Services The LRSD Board of Directors is at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Dr. Roy Brooks, LRSD Superintendent, is the chief executive officer of the school district. Persons reporting directly to Dr. Brooks include Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent, and Joseph Mittiga, the LRSD Governmental, Legislative and Public Affairs Officer. Beverly Griffin, Dr. Brooks' assistant, also reports to directly to Dr. Brooks. The Director of Communications, Suellen Vann, reported directly to Mr. Mittiga. She is no longer employed by LRSD. Several persons report directly to Mr. Hattabaugh, including Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of Elementary Education\nMark Milhollen, the Chief Financial Officer ofLRSD\nDr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent of Educational Services\n22 \u0026gt; 0. 0. .... \u0026gt; 0. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w C. p... /l David Hartz, Director of Human Resources\nJunious Babbs, Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education\nand Dr. Linda Watson, Senior Director of Student Services. At the next level are those who report through Dr. Roberts to Mr. Hattabaugh including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of PRE, and Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director of Curriculum. Karen Carter, the principal at Meadowcliff Elementary and the current President of the Principals' Roundtable, reports directly to Dr. Sadie Mitchell. Each of the persons mentioned above currently serves on the Superintendent's Cabinet which meets weekly to discuss the operations of the various LRSD departments. In addition to these persons, our interviews included three statisticians on the PRE staff: Mr. Jim Wohlleb, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams. We also interviewed Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, and Dr. Steven Ross, one of the outside evaluators hired by the District to perform step 2 Evaluations in conjunction with the Compliance Remedy. The chain of command is also considered to be the proper line of communication within LRSD. Personnel of LRSD are expected to communicate upward through the structure, if possible. Complaints regarding one's immediate superior are to be communicated to that person's immediate superior. However, superiors occasionally communicate directly with persons multiple levels below. C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion As stated by the United States District Court3 (\"the Court\") in its June 30, 2004, Opinion (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), LRSD has been involved in desegregation litigation since 1956. The obligations relevant to this investigation arise from certain plans filed in the 3 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 23 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. p. N ,. /l litigation and adopted by the Court and certain opinions issued by the Court. An understanding of the plans and opinions is necessary to this investigation. They are the 1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), Ex. 1, the September 13, 2002, Opinion from the Court and the compliance remedy contained therein, and the June 30, 2004, Opinion from the Court and the supplemental and substituted compliance remedy contained therein. Ex. 2. On January 16, 1998, LRSD and Joshua entered into the Revised Plan that outlined the agreed obligations of LRSD necessary to obtain unitary status4 and release from court supervision. The Court entered an order on September 13, 2002, finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations set forth in the Revised Plan except those obligations outlined in  2. 7 .1. That section required that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American 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. Ex. 1. The Court set forth a Compliance Remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"), which contained three subparts (A, B, and C) with which the Court expected LRSD to comply. Subpart A required that LRSD devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American 4 \"Unitary Status\" is a term of art in school desegregation litigation and one that is difficult to accurately define. Courts have stated that unitary status is achieved when a wrongdoer proves that it has complied with the court decree in good faith and has done everything practicable to remedy the effects of prior discrimination. The idea of \"complete\" unitary status connotes a release from all judicial monitoring of a school district's efforts to remove the vestiges of prior discrimination. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2049, 132 L.Ed.2d 63, 81 ( I 995). 24 \u0026gt; C. C. .....  C. C. N  C. C. (.,J students. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each 2.7 program. Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report with the Court and sought a declaration of complete unitary status on the ground that it had complied with the requirements of 2.7.1. On June 30, 2004, however, the Court issued an Opinion, Ex. 2, finding that although LRSD had substantially complied with the requirements of subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, it had not demonstrated substantial compliance with subparts A and B. At the end of the Court's Opinion, it set forth another Compliance Remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\") which reads as follows: A. LRSD must promptly5 hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE depai1ment. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.6 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make 5 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"promptly hire,\" l mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. 6 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"comprehensive program assessment process,\" I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African- 25  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t.,J .. C. sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Part ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005- 06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of the step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross-to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the 2.7 program being evaluated improved American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to include preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term \"assessment\" to mean \"testing.\" 26  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ ll E. F. G. the achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes[] the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2. 7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates much be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1 and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been 27 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N\n.. Q. Q. !,,,J completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. H. The ODM must actively assist LRSD in meeting its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. If problems arise, the ODM must work with LRSD to solve them. The ODM's primary mission is to do everything necessary to ensure that LRSD substantially complies with all of its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. I. J. K. I expect Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. If problems arise between LRSD and Joshua regarding the formulation and implementation of the comprehensive program assessment process, the key  2. 7 programs that will be the subject of the eight step 2 evaluations, or any other aspect ofLRSD's compliance obligations, the parties must bring such problems to my attention so that I can resolve them. I want to be very clear on this point-if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make \"mid-course corrections.\" The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court not later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIII of the September 13 Decision. Ex. 2. In summary, the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy places the following duties upon LRSD:  Reinvigoration of PRE through the hiring of a highly trained team of professionals\n28  C. C. N  C. C. ~  Devising a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\n Hiring outside consultants to prepare a total of eight step 2 evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement\n Overseeing the evaluations, working closely with the evaluators and providing them with all requested assistance and support\n Including within the evaluations ( 1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data to the evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and (3) brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness\n Notifying ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight step 2 programs to be evaluated and providing a copy of the final draft comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval\n Submitting eight quarterly written updates on the status of the step 2 evaluations to ODM and Joshua\n Submitting to the Court four step 2 evaluations by October 1, 2005, and four more by October 1, 2006\nand  Submitting a Compliance Report to the Court by October 15, 2006. D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates In accordance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired and added three new professionals to the PRE team in the fall of 2004: Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Ms. Maurecia Malcolm (now Robinson), and Mr. James C. Wohlleb. Ex. 6. On December 1, 2004, LRSD filed its first Quarterly Update to ODM and Joshua. Id. This Quarterly Update, as well as each of the others that followed, was organized into sections that matched the subparagraphs in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 16, 2004, the LRSD implemented and the Board adopted a written Comprehensive Program Assessment Process as referenced in subparagraphs 29 /1 Band F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 7. The next seven required Quarterly Updates were filed on March l, 2005\nJune l, 2005\nAugust 31, 2005\nDecember 1, 2005\nMarch l, 2006\nJune 1, 2006\nand September l, 2006. Exs. 13A, 14, 16, 22, 24, 39 and 123. A discussion of the contents of the various updates and the differences between them can be found in a document attached hereto in the Addendum, as Add. 3. The contents of the Eighth (and final) Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") drafted by PRE became an issue between certain PRE staff members, senior administrators, and LRSD outside counsel and is central to one aspect of this investigation. Each of the four iterations of the Q8 Update are included as Exhibits 69, 97, 108 and 123. A \"redlined\" version of the Q8 Update showing the modifications made by Mr. Heller to the PRE draft can be found at Ex. 121. Also, a document discussing the changes that occurred between the four iterations of the Q8 Update is provided in the Addendum as Add. 4. According to certain PRE staff, PRE's draft of the Q8 Update contained information concerning the comprehensive assessment process that had not been included in previous updates but which they felt was crucial to include. LRSD senior administrators and outside counsel believed that much of the additional information included by PRE was unnecessary and some was inaccurate. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh's office between Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb, and Ms. Robinson to discuss PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and whether certain information was necessary and accurate. After the meeting, PRE made certain minor deletions to its draft (which 30  Q. Q.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q, ~ \" it later requested be reinstated) but these changes did not satisfy the concerns of LRSD administrators and Mr. Heller. On August 24, 2006, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update by deleting certain portions. As edited, the Q8 Update was presented to the Board for approval at its August 24, 2006, meeting. The Q8 Update was approved by the Board and ultimately filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. Certain PRE staff members disagreed strongly with the decision to delete portions of PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. These disagreements were later aired in Dr. DeJarnette's October 3, 2006, Grievance, Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, and the PRE Compliance History Document delivered directly to the Board on November 3, 2006. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. III. DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed the Grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department. Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5. The allegations summarized below were included in the Grievance:  Senior administrators have created a hostile work environment by directing Dr. DeJarnette to withhold information from the District's Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, and if she did not withhold that information as directed, she would be terminated.  Withholding the information directly violates the Court's compliance remedy in its June 30, 2004, decision and is not in the best interests of the African-American students regarding their attaining academic achievement.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to perform her job as Director of PRE because if she does, she will be terminated.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to provide information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court that is mandated by the compliance remedy for fear of termination. 31 ....  Q. Q. tJJ  If Dr. DeJarnette does not provide the information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, the Court could find her and the LRSD in contempt of its mandate in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette requested the following relief: Id.  That the hostile work environment created by senior administrators cease\n That the senior administrators stop threatening her with termination\n That she not be terminated by any senior administrator or the LRSD for performing her job as Director of PRE and for complying with the 2004 Compliance Remedy\n That she not be directed by any senior administrator to withhold information from the Board, ODM, Joshua, or the Court\nand  That the LRSD follow its policies, regulations and the 2004 Compliance Remedy related to the evaluation and assessment tasks pertaining to improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. On November 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette provided by letter to each Board member, Dr. Brooks, Mr. Heller, ODM, and Joshua, the PRE Compliance History Document. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The PRE Compliance History Document contained a number of allegations and recommendations regarding compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The following is a summary of the allegations included in the PRE Compliance History Document under a section titled \"Difficulties with Compliance\":  Rejuvenation of PRE. o Reorganization eliminated PRE's secretary and its test coordinator. o LRSD decreased the test coordinator position to an 11 month position. Before restoring it to a 12 month position, the test coordinator resigned, and PRE was without a full-time test coordinator for more than 12 months resulting in test infractions.  Eight Evaluations by External Experts. 32  Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l,.I J\\ o The External Evaluators have discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. o No policy or comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. o The extent of data errors is unknown which leads to uncertainty in the accuracy and validity of results based upon the data. o PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. o LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data.  Embedding assessments in LRSD operations. o PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" in late 2004. o LRSD rejected PRE's plans and recommended software for the \"data warehouse and selected a firm which develops data warehouses for commercial applications. o It is unknown when the firm will complete enough of its \"data cube\" to support PRE's data needs. o LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data warehouse. o LRSD has undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally by refusing to implement surveys recommended by PRE. o LRSD opposed PRE's project to respond to Arkansas' new requirement for a wellness priority.  Q8 Update. o PRE's draft of the Q8 Update noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and the threat to sound decisions based on such information. o LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version of the Q8 Update from the Board and eliminated portions of the draft version without the Board's knowledge. o PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when originally posting the draft Q8 Update to the Board's Novus Agenda system.  Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua. o During the 2004-05 school year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not cooperative. During the 2005-06 school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw while PRE experienced less responsiveness from LRSD counsel. o LRSD's counsel directed PRE not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel and PRE's plea for clarification went unanswered. o PRE felt estranged from LRSD and its counsel's rapport and became progressively cooperative with ODM and Joshua. 33 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Compliance Report o LRSD's Compliance Report contained significant errors. After notification from PRE, counsel corrected some of these errors and submitted a revised report.  Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials. o The relationship between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. o The superintendent threatened Dr. DeJarnette' s dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. o Information from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. o Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette's knowledge. o LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. o PRE's director engaged a law firm for advice in the absence ofLRSD's legal counsel. o PRE's Director filed a Grievance. o LRSD has not tried remediation nor informed the Board of the Grievance. The PRE Compliance History Document also made recommendations to remedy these difficulties which are summarized below:  Restoration of Administrative Support. o Add an administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  Comprehensive Study of LRSD Data Accuracy and Policies and Procedures for managing data. o Hire consultants knowledgeable in public school data requirements.  More Resources Devoted to Completing the Data Warehouse. o Finish and test LRSD's data warehouse quickly. o Estimate error rates in previously collected data and correct errors. o Include additional information in the data warehouse needed by PRE. o If the data warehouse proves inadequate, reconsider using PRE's vendor.  Protection of PRE and LRSD from Senior Administrator's actions. o The Board should directly communicate with PRE similar to the internal auditor. 34 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. w Q. Q. ~ Jl o The Board should determine PRE's budget. o LRSD's senior officials are not trustworthy with communicating expert opinions to the Board and they should be replaced. IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE QGTB's investigation focused on the allegations contained in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document. Documents were accumulated and interviews were conducted to develop, as fully as practicable in the limited time allowed, the facts relevant to the topics addressed in these two documents. A. Documents Reviewed QGTB received a number of documents initially from LRSD. In addition, many documents were obtained from various individual witnesses as a result of their interviews. The documents received and examined have been placed in chronological order in three volumes accompanying this report. The documents are also imaged on a compact disc in Adobe .pdf format. What follows is an index of the documents by date and a short description of each document: Ex.# Date Description 1 1/16/1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2 6/30/2004 USDC Memorandum Opinion\nCase No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR 3 11/16/2004 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: memo from Ross 4 11/22/2004 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: response to ODM 5 11/23/2004 E-mail from Kampman to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: LRSD Quarterly Update 6 12/1/2004 Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua 7 12/16/2004 LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process 8 1/18/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, Subject: Fw: March 1 Update 9 2/4/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette 10 2/8/2005 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update 35 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. l,.J 11 2/8/2005 12 2/16/2005 13 2/22/2005 13A 3/1/2005 14 6/1/2005 15 8/9/2005 16 8/31/2005 17 11/16/2005 18 11/16/2005 19 11/16/2005 20 11/17/2005 21 11/18/2005 22 12/1/2005 23 2/7/2006 24 3/1/2006 25 4/24/2006 26 5/1/2006 27 5/9/2006 28 5/10/2006 29 5/26/2006 30 5/31/2006 31 5/31/2006 32 5/31/2006 33 5/31/2006 34 5/31/2006 35 6/1/2006 36 6/1/2006 E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update+ invitations to ODM \u0026amp; Joshua E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, DeJarnette, Subject: RE: addition to update E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Williams, Malcolm, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 2nd update ms LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 4th update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 4:04 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 8:25 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: quarterly final E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report Letter from Heller to Walker, Subject: RE: LRSD LRSD's Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua [Notice of Filing Omittedl E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: work assignments LRSD Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors [File-Marked] E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Roberts, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: FW: Program Evaluations for 2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Brooks to DeJarnette, Subject: PRE Team E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: Cabinet Notes 05-08- 06 Notes from Meeting with Gene Jones E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller Notes from Meeting with Chris Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: E-mail from DeJarnette to Powell, Subject: FW: document enclosed E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: ODM concerns enclosed 36 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t-J 37 6/1/2006 38 6/1/2006 39 6/1/2006 40 6/7/2006 41 6/12/2006 42 6/12/2006 43 6/13/2006 44 6/13/2006 45 6/14/2006 46 6/19/2006 47 6/22/2006 48 6/23/2006 49 6/23/2006 50 6/26/2006 51 6/29/2006 52 6/30/2006 53 7/5/2006 54 7/7/2006 55 7/11/2006 56 7/12/2006 57 7/12/2006 58 7/14/2006 59 7/14/2006 60 7/18/2006 61 7/21/2006 E-mail from DeJamette to Hattabaugh, Subject: ODM contact name and number E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Brooks, Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshot LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update [File-Marked] E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: meeting Monday at 1 E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Brooks, cc: Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshots E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts and Williams, Subject: RE: Draft from this mornings comments E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Subject: RE: Room 14 is too crowded E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: missing test book E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: statement to board members E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Heller, Subject: statements last night E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: letter Eighth Circuit Opinion News Article: LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing programs as it should E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: RE: foi E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller News Article: LR schools tell judge: No basis to hold hearing E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: need counsel on confidentiality E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: extension of time request E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Brooks, cc: Hattabaugh, Babbs, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Mitchell, Vann, Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 E-mail from DeJarnette to Kampman, cc: Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Heller, Subject, RE: Scott Smith .... E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Snapshot E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Brooks, Griffin, Subject: RE: letter to counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: counsel 37  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 62 7/24/2006 63 7/24/2006 64 7/24/2006 65 7/24/2006 66 8/7/2006 67 8/8/2006 68 8/9/2006 69 8/9/2006 70 8/9/2006 71 8/9/2006 72 8/9/2006 73 8/9/2006 74 8/9/2006 75 8/9/2006 76 8/9/2006 77 8/10/2006 78 8/10/2006 79 8/10/2006 80 8/10/2006 81 8/10/2006 82 8/10/2006 83 8/10/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, W ohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 7:00 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, Wohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 2:51 PM E-mail from Wohlleb to DeJarnette, Heller, Eddings, Brooks, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, cc: Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly update for board agenda meeting E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: draft quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly - Attachment: LRSD Quarterly Update, September 1, 2006 DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly - Attachments: updates ep06draft. doc E-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from Roberts to Griffin, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly - Attachments: updateSep06draft.doc E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: Re: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update - Attachments: Sep06 Quart. Draft.doc E-mail from Brooks to Griffin, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly update 38  C. C. N  C. ?- (.,.) 84 8/10/2006 85 8/14/2006 86 8/17/2006 87 8/17/2006 88 8/17/2006 89 8/21/2006 90 8/21/2006 91 8/21/2006 92 8/21/2006 93 8/21/2006 94 8/21/2006 95 8/21/2006 96 8/21/2006 97 8/21/2006 98 8/21/2006 99 8/21/2006 100 8/21/2006 101 8/21/2006 102 8/21/2006 103 8/21/2006 104 8/22/2006 105 8/22/2006 106 8/22/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Griffin, Subject: agenda meeting E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: joshua concerns\nqtrly report E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: FW: Data for Evaluation E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: hello E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - enclosed file follows E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - FINAL DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - Attachments: updateSep06draftfinal.doc E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Heller, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Griffin to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Roberts to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly revised 39 \u0026gt; Q. p.. N 'Jl 107 8/22/2006 108 8/22/2006 109 8/22/2006 110 8/23/2006 111 8/23/2006 112 8/23/2006 113 8/23/2006 114 8/24/2006 115 8/24/2006 116 8/24/2006 117 8/24/2006 118 8/24/2006 1 I 9 8/24/2006 120 8/24/2006 121 9/ 1/2006 122 9/1/2006 123 9/1 /2006 124 9/5/2006 125 9/ 14/2006 126 9/19/2006 127 10/3/2006 E-mail from Griffin to Baker Kurrus and various e-mail addresses, Subject: Agenda E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, Attachments: updateSep06draftwithedit.doc E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, with attachment E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap E-mail from Kampman to Heller, Subject: Fwd: RE: Board Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:25 PM E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:45 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs w/attachment, Sent: 10:56 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:08 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson \u0026amp; Williams, Subject: RE: comments on the update E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: Quarterly Report E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: FW: Quarterly Report DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update (Red-lined Copy) FINAL DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update (File-Marked] E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: LRSD Quarterly Update/Sept 1, 2006 ( enclosed file follows) E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Brooks, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP E-mail from Heller to Brooks, Catterall, DeJarnette, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Memo from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: Employee Relations Complaint, Attachment: Complaint Form 40 \u0026gt; Q. .P..-. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 128 10/5/2006 129 l 0/6/2006 130 10/10/2006 131 10/10/2006 132 10/10/2006 133 10/11/2006 134 10/11/2006 135 10/12/2006 136 10/16/2006 137 10/16/2006 138 10/18/2006 139 10/18/2006 140 10/19/2006 141 10/20/2006 142 10/20/2006 143 10/25/2006 144 10/31/2006 145 11/2/2006 146 11/2/2006 147 11/2/2006 148 11/6/2006 149 11/13/2006 150 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy. Reply to 10/4/2006 e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette E-mail from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: next steps E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 LRSD's Compliance Report [File-Marked] Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Appendix C DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz (Handwritten) E-mail from Brooks to Roberts, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Re: compliance report E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis LRSD's Revised Compliance Report [File-Marked] E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from DeJarnette, Attachment: Letter From DeJarnette to Mitchell, Attachment: Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. 11/2/2006 E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette regarding independent investigation Handwritten note regarding testing investigation notices, Attachment: 11/2/2006 Letter from Smith to Brooks Checklist of LRSD's progress in uploading analytic data into its Business Objects data warehouse as defined in November 2005 41 \u0026gt; C. C. .... \u0026gt; C. p.. N  Q. C. t,J 151 I Sign-In Sheets B. Persons Interviewed QGTB interviewed the following persons as part of its investigation: Administration/Counsel Roy Brooks Beverly Griffin Hugh Hattabaugh Chris Heller  Mark Milhollen Olivine Roberts PRE Staff Karen DeJarnette Maurecia Robinson Ed Williams Jim Wohlleb Cabinet Members Junius Babbs Karen Carter Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Joe Mittiga Linda Watson Suellen Vann Human Resources David Hartz Outside Experts/Evaluators Steve Ross - CREP November 7'h and November 13th November 10th November 7th and November 14th November 13th November 10th November 7'h and November 13th November gth November 8th November 7'h November 14th November 13th November 10th November 8th November 10th November 8th November 9th November 10th November 9th November 13th Due to Dr. DeJarnette's schedule and that of her counsel, Dr. DeJarnette was not the first interview as was planned. Instead, the interviews began on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 42 .... \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Dr. DeJarnette was interviewed on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, after which it became clear that second interviews of Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh would be necessary. Those were accomplished on November 13 and 14, 2006. Each interview was conducted by two of the three QGTB investigation team members, except for the interview of Mr. Heller which was conducted by all three members of the investigation team. Each interview was recorded and the tapes were transcribed by QGTB staff persons as accurately as the recording quality would allow. The transcripts are included in two volumes accompanying this report which are divided by witness name and which include (1) the transcripts, (2) summary memoranda of each interview, and (3) copies of the documents received from each witness, if any. A court reporting service was not used during the interview procedure due to the expense involved. As with almost any investigation, there were additional persons who could have been interviewed in connection with this investigation if time and expense had permitted such as Mr. Khayyam Eddings, additional outside evaluators, the Board members and others. The same is true for documents as there are likely other documents that may have been discovered had more time been available. By way of example, witnesses were not required to produce copies of their daily calendars and no analysis of LRSD's database containing student information was conducted. Also, expert consultants were not employed to provide assistance with matters such as data accuracy. However, QGTB believes that its investigation has been thorough and that it has gathered sufficient information to make an informed report to the Board of the issues involved. 43  Q. Q. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t..,J :.n V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS A. Timeline of Events From the interviews and the documents reviewed, QGTB has created the following comprehensive timeline of relevant events: Date Event Reference Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and 1/16/1998 Education Plan Ex. 1 Memorandum Opinion from Judge William R. Wilson 6/30/2004 containing \"Compliance Remedy.\" Ex. 2 9/27/2004 Dr. DeJarnette hired by LRSD as Director of PRE Ex.6 Mr. Wohlleb hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/1/2004 department Ex.6 Ms. Robinson hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/4/2004 department Ex.6 E-mails between Wohlleb, Heller and DeJarnette regarding Heller's changes to draft reply to ODM regarding Quarterly 11/22/2004 Update. Ex. 4 E-mail from Kampman/Heller to Wohlleb enclosing draft 11/23/2004 with Heller's comments on Quarterly Update Ex. 5 12/1/2004 First Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex.6 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (IL-R) 12/16/2004 approved Ex. 7 Wohlleb sends e-mail to Heller with copy to DeJarnette requesting to see comments and suggestions from Heller about draft of March 1 Quarterly Update before showing it to 2/4/2005 Dr. Brooks. Ex. 9 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that we should meet with Joshua if they have any concerns about the Quarterly Reports when they are filed, but that we don't need to meet about each report otherwise. DeJarnette responds (and copies Wohlleb) that she is happy not to meet about the Quarterly 2/8/2005 Update with Joshua. Ex. 10 Wohlleb responds to e-mail asking questions about changes to 2/8/2005 the Quarterly Update suggested by Heller. Ex. 11 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller regarding draft of the second 2/22/2005 Quarterly Update and whether it needs any further changes Ex. 13 3/1/2005 Second Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex. 13A 44 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q, Q, (.,.I ./l Board approves reorganization of district reporting responsibilities that results in DeJarnette reporting to Olivine 3/24/2005 Roberts instead of directly to Superintendent Brooks. 6/1/2005 Third Quarterly Update filed with Court E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette and Wohlleb suggesting a typographical revision to draft Quarterly Update and stating 8/9/2005 that PRE can \"fire away.\" 8/31/2005 Fourth Quarterly Update filed with Court 3:50 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that he has glanced at the draft Quarterly Update and will need to make 11/16/2005 some changes. 4:48 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette with copy to Brooks 11/16/2005 suggesting several changes in Section D of Quarterly Update. 8:25 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson with copy to Heller enclosing final draft of Quarterly Update with Heller's edits. She states that she will 11/16/2005 print hard copies for the Board, ODM and Joshua. E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that the Quarterly Report draft does not reflect the change he suggested in 1st paragraph of Section D. \"It still reads as if we still don't have any usable data.\" DeJarnette responds with a draft containing 11/17/2005 the changes. Letter from Heller to Walker with copies to Brooks, DeJarnette and Roberts requesting that Joshua's monitoring be done in a way that does not violate a legal ethics rule against direct contact with opposing counsel's clients. Heller states that if Walker will identify Joshua's monitors, he will make sure those persons have access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's monitoring 11/18/2005 expectations. 12/1/2005 Fifth Quarterly Update filed with Court DeJarnette e-mail to Dr. Roberts asking that she keep her in the loop regarding work assignments for statisticians. Dr. 2/7/2006 Roberts agrees to do so. 3/ 1/2006 Sixth Quarterly Update filed with Court Springer sends e-mail to Wohlleb and requests notes of evaluation team meetings. Wohlleb says that the request should be directed to Mr. Hattabaugh. Springer requests that her e-mail be forwarded to Hattabaugh and states that the information should be provided without a formal request. Springer requests that it be treated as if ODM was requesting 4/21/2006 the information. 45 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex.21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24 Ex.25  Q., -P-  Q., P-N  Q. Q., w ft Wohlleb forwards Springer's request for information to Hattabaugh who forwards it on to Heller asking him to inform Walker and Springer of the procedure regarding requests 4/24/2006 pertaining to the evaluations required by the court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing PRE draft of the 5/1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Report. DeJarnette e-mail to PRE Staff and Dr. Roberts re: expectations for PRE team members and process for handling data requests and projects assigned to department. She wants to be notified about requests from administration for 5/9/2006 information. Forwards e-mail to Dr. Brooks as an FYI. DeJarnette e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking whether Dr. Books will go forward with Ed Williams as project manager of Meadowcliff/Wakefield project. Griffin responds that this 5/10/2006 is not what Dr. Brooks told her but she will ask again. Meeting between DeJarnette and Gene Jones - Notes reflect ODM's concerns with issues such as PREs placement in the organizational chart, when the testing coordinator position will be filled and whether the closing of schools will affect 5/26/2006 programs being evaluated. DeJarnette says that she asked Heller to attend evaluation team meetings and told him that she will give Walker and 5/31/2006 Jones a copy of the Quarterly Update final draft. 10:26 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that she will give Walker and Gene Jones a copy of the Quarterly 5/31/2006 today at the team meetings. Meeting between DeJarnette, Gene Jones (ODM), Roberts, 6/1/2006 and Hattabaugh regarding ODM concerns. DeJarnette e-mail to Griffin, Brooks and Roberts regarding PRE Snapshot. She says Dr. Brooks may want to omit the list 6/ 1/2006 of OD M's questions. 6/ 1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Update filed with Court. DeJarnette says that she sent Heller OD M's concerns and 6/1/2006 notes on her meeting with Brooks, Hattabaugh and Roberts. 46 Ex.25 Ex. 26 Ex.27 Ex.28 Ex. 29 Ex.31 Ex. 30 Ex.31 Ex.38 Ex.39 Ex. 39 ..... \u0026gt; Q. p. N  Q. Q. (\n.) :Fl DeJarnette states that a meeting was held about the \"dashboard\" database. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts reported during the meeting that statisticians will not have access to this portion of the database but principals will. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts, after the meeting, said \"the database is not for or about PRE.\" DeJarnette replied \"It should be since we are the department named in the compliance remedy.\" DeJarnette reports that she asked Dr. Roberts if she would meet with PRE staff to share the change of role in the PRE department. DeJarnette reports that she asked Heller to attend the meeting because she was concerned 6/7/2006 with the changes. E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Heller regarding whether Heller would participate in meeting - she wants Heller's advice about the role of PRE in relation to Judge Wilson's order. Roberts states, \"He [Heller] will not attend 6/7/2006 this meeting.\" DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Ark. Dept of Education with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Joshua, Heller and 6/12/2006 others requesting a phone conference meeting. DeJarnette says that she called Heller to request that he meet with PRE regarding a call with Arkansas Department of Education about data. Heller says he will participate in the 6/12/2006 call. DeJarnette, PRE staff, and Heller (via phone) meet with Arkansas Department of Education staff regarding expected 6/12/2006 date for LRSD to receive electronic ACT AAP data. Joy Springer sends an e-mail to DeJarnette requesting a status 6/12/2006 report regarding telephone call with Ark. Dept of Education DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller asking 6/12/2006 whether he will take care of this or whether she should reply DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller again stating that Gene Jones with ODM has asked for a status report regarding Ark. Dept of Education phone conference. She asks whether it is appropriate for her to meet with Jones and Springer at 3:00 pm that day. DeJarnette states that Heller 6/13/2006 informed her not to meet. E-mails between Roberts, Williams and DeJarnette regarding 6/13/2006 Williams' involvement in report on Wakefield. 47 Exs. 31 \u0026amp; 40 Ex.40 Ex.42 Ex. 31 Ex.31 Ex.42 Ex.42 Ex.44 Ex. 43 \u0026gt; Q. p. - \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l.,J ... ... :.n E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks re: \"Room 14 is too crowded\" and other working conditions that need to be addressed - particularly Dr. Roberts' overstepping 6/14/2006 DeJarnette's direction. Cabinet Retreat is held in the Regions Bank Building where DeJarnette claims that Brooks referred to her as an \"outsider\" during a ceremony where certificates were given to individual 6/15/2006 cabinet members. E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts concerning lost test book and need to search room where painters and paint materials 6/19/2006 are kept. DeJarnette states that she called Heller with concerns about 6/22/2006 statements made by Dr. Brooks to the Board members DeJarnette sends e-mail at 9: 16 pm to Heller regarding statements to the Board members by Dr. Brooks about when ACTAAP data will be received. Dr. Brooks said the data will be received by July 1st and the evaluations will not be delayed 6/22/2006 but this is not aligned with her conversations with others. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Roberts with copy to Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' statements to the Board on benchmark data. States that evaluators will receive the data at the end of July rather than July 1st and asks Heller to notify Judge Wilson that the final reports will be submitted to the Court after the October board meeting, not the original October 1 6/23/2006 due date. Eighth Circuit Opinion affirming June 30, 2004 Order from 6/26/2006 Judge William R. Wilson Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding Affidavit from Joy Springer, Mr. Walker's paralegal, entitled \"LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing 6/29/2006 programs as it should\" DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks summoned her to his office on her cell phone and asked her to agree with him that the statements in Ms. Springer's affidavit were not true. She claims that she would not agree to that and that Ms. Springer had evidence to support each of the allegations in her affidavit. DeJarnette alleges that when Dr. Roberts came into the office toward the end of the meeting, Dr. Brooks said, \"Dr. Roberts, I believe that anyone who shares information with Joy Springer should be fired.\" DeJarnette alleges that Dr. 6/29/2006 Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks did not recall such a meeting. 48 Ex.45 Ex.46 Ex.31 Ex.47 Ex.48 Ex. 50 Ex.51 Brooks Tr II at 4- 6\nDeJarnette Tr at 3-4 \u0026gt; Q. p.. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ DeJarnette calls Heller about FOIA request from Walker. 6/30/2006 Assistant says that Heller is out of the office. DeJarnette sends Heller a copy of the FOIA request via e- 6/30/2006 mail. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller regarding her responses to 7/5/2006 the allegations in Springer's affidavit. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller and called 7/7/2006 but he was not in. Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding response from LRSD to motion from Joshua entitled \"LR schools tell judge: 7/7/2006 No basis to hold hearing\" Cabinet meeting held where Dr. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks pointed to her in front of all the cabinet members and said, \"I will fire you if it's the last thing I do if you share 7/11/2006 information with ODM or Joshua. They are the other side.\" DeJarnette e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks about Brooks mentioning on several occasions that a \"breach of confidentiality will lead to 7/11/2006 employee termination.\" DeJarnette states that she called Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' 7/11/2006 threats. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller asking that he please file an extension for the due date for filing evaluations with the Court and that she called him but spoke 7/11/2006 with Brenda Kampman DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Heller about data issues with NORMES and possibility that database will have to be constructed and data input internally. Heller responds asking to be reminded about the difference between what our expert needs and the information in today's paper. DeJarnette responds asking Heller to please respond to the inquiry about 7/12/2006 confidentiality. Heller sends e-mail to Brooks, Hattabaugh, Babbs, DeJarnette, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Sadie Mitchell and Vann regarding probable need for extension on last four evaluations if benchmark results are unavailable in the 7/12/2006 required format. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller forwarding letter from 7/12/2006 Steven Ross about format for data needed. 49 Ex.31 Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 31 Ex.54 DeJarnette Tr at 4\nEx. 55 Ex. 55 Ex.31 Ex.31 Ex.56 Ex.57 Ex. 57  0, 0, ....  0, 0, N  Q. Q. w Heller/Kampman send e-mail to DeJarnette regarding ADE's counsel's statements that he still is not sure what data LRSD 7/13/2006 needs and in what format. DeJarnette responds to Heller/Kampman e-mail stating that if ADE does not know what they need at this point, there is no 7/14/2006 hope of finishing evaluations by October deadline. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status on completing compliance report. DeJarnette states that Heller has provided an update to the court regarding the status of data but has not requested an extension. She includes a document regarding data issues and comparisons of Crystal 7/14/2006 Reports to TetraData E-mails between Heller and DeJarnette regarding update on 7/17/2006 filing a motion for extension of time. 2:59 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson that Heller has not responded to PRE's questions about confidentiality and that there are urgent legal issues affecting our department. If district's counsel is not available, 7/21/2006 they would like to seek other counsel. 3 :31 pm e-mail from Eddings to same group stating he has spoken with DeJarnette and hopefully quelled any concerns 7/21/2006 that she has. DeJarnette e-mail to group that Eddings advised that if a document currently exists and is requested through FOIA that PRE should provide the document to counsel for review and that counsel will forward the documents to the persons making the request. This includes documents requested by 7/24/2006 ODM. Eddings responds that this is correct. Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice agrees with Court's directive to LRSD in early l 990's. Heller states that Eddings advice was about FOIA requests and in the unlikely event that ODM makes any FOIA requests then Eddings' suggested process should be followed. He states that this has no effect 7/24/2006 on the typical ODM request for information. 50 Ex. 58 Ex.58 Ex. 59 Ex.60 Ex. 61 Ex.62 Ex. 62 Ex. 63  Q. .P..-.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (\nJ .:.: . 'JI Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice applies to non-FOIA requests by Joshua. Heller responds that counsel needs to know about all Joshua requests for information. LRSD is still in litigation and there are several issues at stake. Legal ethics rules do not allow direct contact of Heller's clients by an opposing attorney in litigation. Heller needs to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know. Heller states, \"I can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers.\" DeJarnette responds stating that Joshua usually makes an FOIA request and then ODM 7/24/2006 asks informally for the same information. E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she was on vacation last week and did not think she could post the draft Quarterly Report to Novus Agenda by noon. She asks if she 8/7/2006 will be able to post it at the end of the day. 9:51 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing draft copy 8/8/2006 of the Quarterly Update DeJarnette claims to have posted PRE's draft Quarterly 8/8/2006 Update to the Novus Agenda Website DeJarnette provides copies of PRE's draft Quarterly Update to 8/8/2006 ODM and Joshua 4:51 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing a new draft of the Quarterly Update. She states that it is the one that went to Griffin for the board agenda packet. Additional 8/9/2006 sentences added to the first version sent to Heller on 8/8/06. 4:52 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin enclosing Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft 4:56 pm e-mail from Griffin to Roberts forwarding Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft received from DeJarnette 4:57 pm e-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh forwarding 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update draft received from DeJarnette 51 Ex.63 Ex.66 Ex.67 Ex. 75 DeJarnette Tr at 21, 53\nEx. 147 \u0026amp;Add. 6 Ex.68 Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7 Exs. 70 \u0026amp; 71 Ex. 72  0, p. .....  0, 0, N 5:05 pm e-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette stating that the \"cover sheet\" is posted at the Novus site which gives it a place on the action agenda for August. \"Per my phone conversation with Dr. Roberts, I will wait and post the actual report sometime prior to the meeting on the 24th. That gives everyone another week for reading, reviewing, revising. If any of the board members ask why it's not posted, I will have to say that it was not complete prior to the agenda deadline of 8/9/2006 August 8th.\" 5:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she posted the agenda item and draft report on 8/8. It's okay with PRE if the Board does not consider the report tomorrow as long as it is approved by the end of the month so Heller can 8/9/2006 file it with the Court. 5:29 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts forwarding draft 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update. E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller with copies to Griffin and Brooks stating that he wants PRE's draft Quarterly Report reviewed by legal counsel to ensure objective and concise information is reported. Wants \"biased comments\" 8/ 10/2006 eliminated. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller regarding posting of the draft Quarterly Update for the agenda meeting and whether Board members will have an adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update. Heller says that we have three weeks and 8/10/2006 did not see a problem. E-mail from Roberts to Heller with copies to Brooks and Hattabaugh attaching draft Quarterly Update from PRE and 8/ 10/2006 requesting that Heller please note pages 3, 4, 6, and 9. Brooks forwards Roberts' e-mail to Heller to Griffin, 8/10/2006 Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga and Roberts DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Roberts and Griffin stating that she will not be able to attend the agenda meeting but that 8/ 10/2006 Wohlleb will be there. Heller sends an e-mail to DeJarnette re: \"joshua concerns\nqtrly report\". States that he is sorry for delay but that they found out Thursday about an injunction hearing concerning an issue at Central scheduled for Monday, now Tuesday. He 8/14/2006 says he will call as soon as that gets under control. 52 Ex. 73 Ex. 75 Ex. 76 Ex. 77 Ex. 79 Ex. 81 Ex. 83 Ex. 84 Ex. 85 \u0026gt; Q. p. .....  Q,. p. (\n.I :JI E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating \"please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence.\" DeJarnette responds and says, \"Will 8/17/2006 do, Thanks.\" DeJarnette states that she left a voice mail message for Heller requesting clarification and did not receive a return call. Heller states in his interview that he does not recall such a 8/17/2006 voice mail. E-mail from Springer to DeJarnette, Powell (ODM) and Walker stating that it appears the data being provided to evaluators is not valid or is fraught with errors especially relating to student identity and attendance. Springer requests that DeJ arnette explain the process used by PRE for 8/17/2006 submitting data to experts. DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks stating that she would not 8/17/2006 respond to the e-mail upon Heller's advice. E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette and Roberts asking whether Quarterly Update is ready to be attached to the board agenda. DeJarnette responds saying that Wohlleb is amending the report to reflect the receipt of electronic data and that PRE has not heard from Heller yet about the Quarterly Update. Griffin responds saying that she needs the Quarterly Update by noon 8/21/2006 on August 22nd. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin and Roberts attaching an amended Quarterly Update reflecting receipt of electronic data and that the data has been passed on to 8/21 /2006 external evaluators. E-mail from Griffin to Heller and Brooks asking whether the Quarterly Update can be posted to the board agenda by noon 8/21 /2006 on the 22nd 10: 15 am Meeting in Mr. Hattabaugh's office between Hattabaugh, Roberts, Heller, DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams. Discussions are had concerning whether certain information in the draft Quarterly Update is 8/22/2006 appropriate for the report and/or inaccurate. 1 :02 pm e-mail from Griffin to Board members that agenda for 8/24 meeting has been posted but is not complete. The PRE is fine-tuning the Quarterly Report and it will be attached 8/22/2006 as soon as the revisions are made. 53 Exs. 86 \u0026amp; 87 DeJarnette Tr at 35\nHeller Tr at 23 Ex.88 Ex.88 Ex.92 Ex.96 Ex.95 Ex. 107  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (.,.) 3:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Roberts, Hattabaugh and PRE staff that three of the PRE members put their notes together about the suggested edits. They have a clear understanding about the changes in section F regarding listing of programs and have struck all but the first sentence from that paragraph. They are fuzzy on exactly what else Heller, Roberts and Hattabaugh wanted to strike from the 8/22/2006 report. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status of the Quarterly Update and being able to post it for the Board. DeJarnette states that Heller suggested major edits yesterday but was not specific. PRE will make any edits the Board sees fit but feels it is inappropriate for Heller or senior administrators to exclude the Board from the review process. Griffin responds by stating that she thought that when PRE left the meeting on the 22nd that it would make the suggested revisions and that any report given to the board is subject to administrative/cabinet level review and that the attorneys have the option of making suggested changes before it is presented to the board. \"We are trying to comply with the court's order and get out of court. Chris is the one who should guide us in that endeavor.\" DeJ arnette responds stating that PRE made the specific edits suggested but Heller was not clear on the other edits. She states that if Heller, Roberts or Hattabaugh 8/23/2006 are clear on the needed edits, they can make the revisions. Griffin sends e-mail to Heller/Kampman stating that DeJarnette tells her that she hasn't received the final version of the Quarterly report. Griffin states that it needs to be posted 8/23/2006 to the board before she leaves today. 10:56 am E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh and Roberts requesting further conversation related to program assessments. After further reflection, she is uncomfortable removing the names of the programs from the Quarterly 8/24/2006 Update. 12: 12 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson stating that she has given all the reflection and input she feels necessary regarding the Quarterly Update and that she defers to counsel 8/24/2006 to amend any portion of the report necessary. 54 Ex. 108 Ex. 110 Ex. 111 Ex. 114 Exs. 115 \u0026amp; 116 \u0026gt; C. p. .... \u0026gt; C. C. N \u0026gt; Q. C. c.,.i 1: 15 e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams thanking Wohlleb for preparing comments on update but that she did not think PRE would need it as she planned to follow counsel's advice and defer any questions to 8/24/2006 Heller. 1 :37 e-mail from Heller/Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks attaching Quarterly Report with his most recent suggested changes. DeJarnette forwards 8/24/2006 to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams at 4:05 pm. Board Meeting held where Heller's edited version of Eighth 8/24/2006 Quarterly Update is approved. 9/1/2006 Eighth Quarterly Update filed with Court Heller/Kampman e-mail filed copy of Eighth Quarterly Update to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and 9/5/2006 Brooks DeJarnette e-mails Heller and others (possibly Joshua) stating that she has scheduled a conference call with Steven Ross to discuss his request for an extension of the deadline for reports. Heller responds stating that he sees no reason for an open conference call with Dr. Ross before LRSD has determined the status of the evaluation and reports to the Court, ODM and Joshua. Heller claims that DeJarnette held open conference 9/14/2006 call anyway. Heller e-mail to DeJarnette, Brooks, Catterall, Hattabaugh, Powell (ODM), Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams and Wohlleb stating that there is no reason for a conference call 9/ 19/2006 with Dr. Ross today. 10/3/2006 Grievance filed by Dr. DeJarnette E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette requesting \"what information 'mandated by the compliance remedy' [she] was 10/4/2006 directed to withhold and who directed rherl to withhold it.\" E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller in response to request for information stating that she was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold information in Subsection B and Subsection F of the September 1, 2006 10/5/2006 Quarterly Update and enclosing a file of documents. E-mail from DeJarnette to Robert Robinson regarding next 10/6/2006 steps in process for written grievance. 55 Ex. 118 Exs.119\u0026amp; 120 Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8 Ex. 124 Ex. 125 Ex. 126 Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5 Ex. 128 Ex. 128 Ex. 129  Q. p. N  Q.. Q.. ~ Q.. p. ... 2:03 pm E-mail from Hartz to DeJamette stating that he would like to have a meeting with her to discuss issues cited 10/10/2006 in her complaint and requesting dates and times for a meeting. 6:38 pm Response from DeJarnette to Hartz regarding request for meeting. She asks what the procedure for the meeting will be, whether other people will attend and whether it will 10/10/2006 include an informal conversation between Hartz and her. Phone conversation between DeJarnette and Hartz where Hartz explained that the meeting would be to establish the 10/10/2006 process and procedure of the grievance 8:38 am Response from Hartz to DeJarnette confirming a meeting at 1 :30 pm on 10/12/06. DeJarnette notes that when she arrived, Mr. Hartz said his mother was ill and he needed 10/11/2006 to leave and would reschedule. 20 minute meeting between Hartz and DeJarnette that had to be cut short because of the fact that Hartz's mother was in the 10/12/2006 hospital. DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking that PRE be reorganized so as to report directly to the Board of 10/12/2006 Directors rather than to senior administrators. Little Rock School District's Compliance Report is filed with 10/16/2006 the Court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE has concerns about statements in Compliance Report regarding school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. Heller/Kampman respond be asking (I) who at PRE is concerned and what is the concern, (2) to quote the language that is a concern and (3) an explanation in detail of the basis 10/18/2006 for each concern. 40 to 45 minute meeting between DeJarnette and Hartz - 10/18/2006 Typewritten and handwritten notes produced by Hartz. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE can provide the information requested by Heller. Kampman responds that Heller would like to meet on October 20th but would like a 10/19/2006 written response in advance of any meeting. PRE creates document of its comments regarding the l 0/19/2006 Compliance Report submitted on 10/16/06 to the Court. 10/20/2006 DeJarnette e-mails Heller two documents created by PRE DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/20/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. 56 Ex. 130 Ex. 132 Hartz Transcript at 3. Exs. 133 \u0026amp; 134 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 135 Ex. 136 Ex. 141 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 141 Ex. 137 Exs. 141 \u0026amp; 137 DeJarnette Tr at 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ .. ... :::. Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report is 10/25/2006 filed. Hartz reports that he spoke with DeJarnette during board meeting break and explained that mother was recently released from the hospital. DeJarnette reportedly stated \"no problem\" and that she was busy and probably would not have 10/26/2006 had the time until then anyway. DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/27/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz checking on potential date to 10/31/2006 discuss her complaint. Brooks e-mails Griffin, Hartz, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Heller, Mitchell and Babbs asking Dr. Roberts to notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance history update at the November 9th agenda meeting and the presentation should involve other members of the PRE Department. Dr. Roberts forwards the e-mail to 11 /2/2006 DeJarnette. Response from Hartz to DeJarnette stating that he will be in touch with a date very soon and has been out due to continued 11 /2/2006 family illness. Two letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education, to Dr. Brooks regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11 /2/2006 from McClellan High DeJarnette responds to 11/2/06 e-mail from Brooks/Roberts by stating that both Robinson and Wohlleb are scheduled to be on vacation on the 9th but PRE would be happy to meet with the Board and answer any questions. She attaches 11/3/2006 Compliance History documents 2004-2005 Compliance History Document sent to Board of 11/3/2006 Directors by Karen DeJarnette Dennis Glasgow had a conversation with Wohlleb regarding the Compliance History document and took issue with certain portions. W ohlleb asked Glasglow whether he thought that PRE should report directly to the Board and Glasgow 11 /3/2006 responded that he did not think that should happen. Dr. Brooks phones Dr. DeJarnette after receiving the 11/3/2006 Compliance History Document. 57 Ex. 143 Hartz Transcript at 9. DeJ arnette Tr at 17 Ex. 144 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 145 Ex. 149 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Glasgow Transcript p. 9- 10 Brooks Transcript II at p. 1 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 'JI Hartz reports that he phoned DeJarnette and informed her of 11/6/2006 the decision to have an outside counsel review her complaint. Hartz Tr at 10 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette informing her that the Quattlebaum firm would conduct an independent investigation 11/6/2006 of her concerns Ex. 148 Fax from Dr. Brooks to Karen DeJarnette enclosing two November 2, 2006 letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11/13/2006 from McClellan High Ex. 149 B. Factual Issues Identified From the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, the following general categories and subcategories of factual issues were identified: 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update a. What is an \"Update?\" b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process c. Drafting of the Q8 Update d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting f. August 22, 2006, Meeting g. h. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting Instructions to Withhold Information 58  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 2. Threats of Termination a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command b. Direct Threats of Termination 1. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article. 11. Threats at Cabinet Meetings c. Indirect Threats of Termination 1. The Job Advertisement Incident ii. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident iii. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks 3. Hostile Work Environment a. Direction of PRE Staff b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office d. Painters in PRE Offices e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE 4. PRE Compliance History Document 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The investigation results regarding each of these categories are addressed and the statements of various witnesses summarized below. C. Discussion of Issues This section of the report addresses the facts discovered in the investigation of the issues raised in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, as well as issues raised during witness interviews. 59 \u0026gt; Q, P- ..... ::. \" 'JI 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") Issue: LRSD Administration and Mr. Heller disagreed with PRE regarding the topics and initiatives to be included in the Q8 Update. The primary issue in this investigation concerns the events leading to the preparation and filing of the Q8 Update. Dr. DeJarnette, in her November 3, 2006, letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Chairperson of the Board, states that PRE believes that the Board has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. Dr. DeJarnette states in this letter, \"[o]ne of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006).\" Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. This section addresses the facts as they relate to the Q8 Update. a. What is an \"Update?\" According to paragraph G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at page 65, \"PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year.\" Ex. 2. Thus, for the two school years at issue, PRE was required to submit a total of eight \"Updates\" concerning the step 2 program evaluations. b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process The basic outline for the Updates was taken from the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 2. Initial drafts of the Updates were created wholly by PRE staff. DeJarnette Tr. at 19. Mr. Wohlleb was the primary drafter of the Updates for PRE. Id. at 19-20. His initial draft was then circulated within PRE for comment. Id. at 20. PRE commonly had the Updates ready for review by the cabinet and Mr. Heller thirty days before they were to be submitted to the 60 \u0026gt; Q. P- ~ \u0026gt; Q. P-N \u0026gt; Q. Q. t.,.l .. :i. 'Jl Board. Id. After an Update was submitted to the Board and approved by the Board, Mr. Heller would file it with the Court. Id. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update A more comprehensive report titled \"Compliance Report\" 7 was scheduled to be filed on October 15, 2006. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she asked Mr. Heller in June 2006 if PRE would be responsible for writing the Compliance Report due to the Court on October 15, 2006. Id. at 23. When Mr. Heller stated that he would be drafting the Compliance Report, Dr. DeJarnette decided that the Q8 Update should be PRE's version of the Compliance Report, and it should include a detailed summary of the activities that PRE performed in the years 2004-2006. Id. d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website The Board's agenda is prepared using the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 5. Departments within LRSD prepare their agenda items and post their attachments for Board review. Id. at 6. Initially, agenda items are available on the Novus Agenda website for internal review through the chain of command. Id. at 7-8. Once an agenda item has been reviewed through the chain of command and approved by Dr. Brooks, Ms. Griffin posts that agenda item for Board review and review by the public at large. Id. There is some uncertainty about when the draft Q8 Update was posted to on the Novus Agenda website. However, it is undisputed that the draft Q8 Update was e-mailed to 7 LRSD was obligated under Paragraph K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to file a Compliance Report, documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1 requires that \"LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American 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.\" 61 \u0026gt; Q, p. .... \u0026gt; Q, p. N  Q, p. \\,,I Ms. Griffin, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Heller by August 10, 2006. Bxs. 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection Dr. DeJarnette says that on August 8, 2006, she posted on the LRSD Novus Agenda website, which is an internal LRSD website that allows LRSD employees to post and review documents for the Board's agenda meeting, a draft of the Q8 Update. Ex. 75\nDeJarnette Tr. at 25. Dr. DeJarnette also provided copies of the draft Q8 Update to ODM and Joshua on or about the same day. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6\nDeJarnette Tr. at 53. Dr. DeJarnette believes that Ms. Griffin removed the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website, leaving only the cover page. DeJarnette Tr. at 25. ii. Ms. Griffin's Recollection Ms. Griffin does not recall removing the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 9. However, she has in the past removed an item from the Novus Agenda website when asked to do so. Id. at 9-10. Ms. Griffin provided e-mails showing that Dr. DeJarnette sent her the draft Q8 Update on August 9, 2006. Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7. Ms. Griffin then forwarded the draft to Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Bxs. 70 \u0026amp; 72. Also, on August 9, 2006, Ms. Griffin e-mailed Dr. DeJarnette to inform her that the cover sheet for the Q8 Update was posted at the Novus Agenda website, giving it a place on the Board's agenda. Ex. 73. Ms. Griffin recalls that although Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had posted the draft Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda website on August 8, 2006, she told Ms. Griffin that approval by the Board of the Q8 Update by the end of the month would be acceptable. Ex. 75. 62 \u0026gt; 0, p. .... \u0026gt; 0, p. N  0, 0, w iii. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts stated that the Q8 Update was on the agenda for the Board meeting, but the draft Q8 Update was not attached on the Novus Agenda website when she first looked for it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts asked Dr. DeJarnette for a copy of the draft Q8 Update. Id. When Dr. Roberts did not receive a copy of the Q8 Update from Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Roberts obtained a copy of the draft Q8 Update from Ms. Griffin. Ex. 70. Dr. Roberts asked that the draft Q8 Update not be presented to the Board before she had a chance to review it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts stated Dr. DeJarnette seemed surprised that only the cover page of the draft Q8 Update was posted on the Novus Agenda website. Id. at 10. Normally, the full text of the Updates would be on the LRSD Novus Agenda website for the cabinet members to review. The Updates are not public until the Board reviews the agenda. Id. at 6-7. When she received and reviewed a copy of the draft Q8 Update, Dr. Roberts had questions. Id. at 4. Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh sent the draft Q8 Update to Mr. Heller for his review. Exs. 77 \u0026amp; 81. iv. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection Mr. Hattabaugh stated that he either received a draft of the Q8 Update from Mr. Heller or Dr. Roberts\nhe does not recall receiving the draft from Ms. Griffin. Hattabaugh II Tr. at 5. He does not recall going to the Novus Agenda website and pulling down a draft of the Q8 Update. Id. He has no recollection of anyone taking down or instructing someone else to take down a draft of the Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Id. 63 \u0026gt; Q., p. .... \u0026gt; Q., p. N \u0026gt; Q., Q., (.,.) '.Jl e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting i. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts was concerned that the draft Q8 Update mentioned TetraData and addressed \"programs\" that were not required to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Roberts I Tr. at 8. Dr. Roberts stated that the \"programs\" referred to in Section F of the draft Q8 Update went beyond the \"programs\" specified by the Court for inclusion in the Updates. Id. at 8-9. Some of the \"programs\" included in the draft Q8 Update were actually interventions and strategies. Id. These interventions and strategies were not intended to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. For example, the \"program\" titled CRISS is actually a compilation of reading strategies, according to Dr. Roberts. Id. at 9. Dr. Roberts noted that prior Updates did not include the type of information included in the draft Q8 Update. Id. ii. Mr. Heller's Recollection Mr. Heller received an e-mail from Mr. Hattabaugh expressing his concern that the draft Q8 Update included items about which there was an internal dispute and that inclusion of the items was unnecessary. Ex. 77\nHeller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller recalled that Dr. Roberts also suggested changes to the draft Q8 Update. Heller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller was concerned that the draft Q8 Update did not reflect LRSD's position regarding the status of compliance, presented issues that were not required to be included in the Update, and was inaccurate in some respects. Id. at 8-9. He noted the identification of certain initiatives as \"programs\" that were not \"programs\" as that term was used by the Court as an example of an inaccuracy. Id. 64  Q. p. N  Q. C. c.., :ll f. August 22, 2006, Meeting A meeting was held in Mr. Hattabaugh's office on August 22, 2006, to address the concerns of all persons involved in the draft Q8 Update. Present at this meeting were Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, and the PRE staff, consisting of Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb and Ms. Robinson. This meeting lasted about one or two hours. At this meeting, PRE staff, LRSD administrators, and Mr. Heller discussed the draft Q8 Update and each side expressed its position regarding the disputed topics. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection of the Meeting At the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalls Mr. Heller stating that he wanted to remove substantial portions from the draft Q8 Update. DeJarnette Tr. at 23. Dr. DeJarnette stated this was the first time Mr. Heller ever suggested edits to any Update. 8 Id. According to Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Heller agreed with PRE that perhaps the Board should be made aware of the disputed information contained in the draft Q8 Update, but Mr. Heller explained that the Q8 Update was not the proper vehicle to discuss those disputes. Id. However, Dr. DeJarnette stated that the Q8 Update was the only way she knew to share such information with the Board. Id. at 23-24. In addition to Mr. Heller's comments about the draft Q8 Update, Dr. DeJarnette recalls that Dr. Roberts had concerns about Section F of the draft Q8 Update. Id. at 24. Dr. Roberts stated that Section F included a discussion of \"programs\" that did not need to be assessed. Id. Other than the information in Section F, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Mr. Heller was not specific about what other information should be deleted. Id. at 27. Therefore, at the 8 Mr. Heller provided e-mails which indicate that he suggested edits to previous versions of the Updates. See Exs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 26. 65 \u0026gt; C. ?...-. \u0026gt; C. C. N  C. Q. (\n.I cJl conclusion of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette was not clear about what should or should not be deleted from the draft Q8 Update. Id. She recalls Mr. Heller stating that he believed that the 2004 Compliance Remedy only required PRE to report on the eight program evaluations specifically mentioned in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette disagreed, stating that the Court's use of \"deeply embedded\" in the 2004 Compliance Remedy was an overarching term that included more than the eight program evaluations ordered by the Court. Id. She also recalls Mr. Heller stating that he thought the disputed information included in the draft Q8 Update was critical of LRSD. Id. at 31. Dr. DeJarnette recalls that most of the conversation regarding what should be included in the Q8 Update came from Mr. Heller. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette stated that there. was no resolution on what the Q8 Update should address when the meeting ended. Id. ii. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection of the Meeting Mr. Hatta\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\u003eQuattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eShannon, Michael N.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMoore, Benecia B.\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":"tws_oid16_33557","title":"Fayth Hill Washington, 2006","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278541290"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Hoxie (Ark.)","Education","Segregation"],"dcterms_title":["Fayth Hill Washington, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33557"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_296","title":"Conversation with Albert Bethune, Jr., November 12, 2006","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2006-11-12"],"dcterms_description":["This audio recording features footage from a four day interview between Cathy Kershaw, Janice Walton, and Albert Bethune, Jr., Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's grandson, Bethune-Cookman College's archivist, and the founder of the Bethune-Cookman College Gospel Choir. This audio consists of conversations with Albert Bethune regarding his book, detailing the history and life of Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune. Conversations also include the schedule of events for his book presentation, the history of Bethune-Cookman College, segregation, and Black history."],"dc_format":["audio/mp3"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","College presidents","African American students","Interviews","Oral history","African American authors"],"dcterms_title":["Conversation with Albert Bethune, Jr., November 12, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/296"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33553","title":"Rev. Billy Kyles, 2006","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278540513"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Religion","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968"],"dcterms_title":["Rev. Billy Kyles, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33553"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_coretta-scott-king-1927-2006","title":"Coretta Scott King (1927-2006)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Perry County, Heiberger, 32.75818, -87.28667","United States, Alabama, Perry County, Marion, 32.63235, -87.31917","United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637","United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","United States, Massachusetts, Suffolk County, Boston, 42.35843, -71.05977","United States, Ohio, Greene County, Yellow Springs, 39.80645, -83.88687","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["McCarty, Laura"],"dc_date":["2006-11-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about Coretta Scott King, a proponent of civil and human rights, who helped her husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., lead the modern civil rights movement. During their life together, she was his helpmate, raising their four children while supporting his efforts to promote nonviolent social change in race relations during the 1950s and 1960s. Born in 1927 in Heiberger, Alabama, she graduated from Lincoln Normal School, a private school in Marion, Alabama, supported by the American Missionary Association. She then studied music education and sang with choirs at Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, graduating in 1951. Her excellence as a singer earned her a scholarship to New England Conservatory of Music in Boston where she received further music training. She often used her singing talents to raise funds for various civil and human rights causes and activities. She and Martin Luther King, Jr., met in Boston and were married in 1953.After her husband's assassination in 1968, she articulated a vision of his nonviolence expressed internationally through the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change that she founded in Atlanta as a memorial to her slain husband.To foster remembrance of his life and work, she advocated a federal holiday to celebrate his January birthday. She died in January 2006 at a holistic health hospital in Mexico and was both the first woman and the first African American to lie in state at the state capitol rotunda in Atlanta, Georgia.She was buried with her husband at the King Center.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata.","GSE identifier: SS8H11, SS2H1"],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["African American singers--Georgia","Singers--Georgia","African American women singers--Georgia","Women singers--Georgia","African American musicians--Georgia","Musicians--Georgia","African American women musicians--Georgia","Women musicians--Georgia","African American civil rights workers","Civil rights workers","African American women civil rights workers","Women civil rights workers","African American civic leaders","Civic leaders","African American women civic leaders","Women civic leaders","African American social reformers","Social reformers","African American women social reformers","Women social reformers","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights--United States","Civil rights--Georgia","Civil rights--Alabama","Civil rights movements--United States","Civil rights movements--Georgia","Civil rights movements--Alabama","Civil rights demonstrations--United States","Civil rights demonstrations--Georgia","Civil rights demonstrations--Alabama","Protest marches--Alabama","Protest marches--Washington (D.C.)","Education--Alabama--Marion","Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","Women--Education--Alabama--Marion","Women--Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","Women--Education--Massachusetts--Boston","African American women--Education--Alabama--Marion","African American women--Education--Ohio--Yellow Springs","African American women--Education--Massachusetts--Boston","Universities and colleges--Graduate work","New England Conservatory of Music--Graduate work","African Americans--Education--Alabama","African Americans--Education--Ohio","African Americans--Education (Graduate)--Massachusetts--Boston","Music--Study and teaching (Graduate)","Concerts--United States","Fund raising--United States","Montgomery Improvement Association","Boycotts--Alabama--Montgomery","Buses--Alabama--Montgomery","Bombings--Alabama--Montgomery","Dynamite--Alabama--Montgomery","Mass meetings--Alabama--Montgomery","Segregation--Alabama--Montgomery","Segregation in transportation--Alabama--Montgomery","Discrimination--Alabama--Montgomery","Race discrimination--Alabama--Montgomery","Race relations","Montgomery (Ala.)--Race relation--History--20th century","Montgomery (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","Holidays--United States","Holidays--Georgia","Nonviolence--United States","Passive resistance--United States","Women Strike for Peace","Nobel Prizes","Nobel Prize winners--United States","Civil disobedience","Disarmament","Peace","Peace--Awards","Assassination--Tennessee--Memphis","Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Sanitation--Tennessee","Wages--Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Poor People's Campaign","Southern Christian Leadership Conference","Social justice--United States","Social justice--Southern States","Equality--United States","Equality--Southern States","Justice","Fairness","Liberty","National Organization for Women","Equal rights amendments","Equality before the law","Sex discrimination against women--Law and legislation","Affirmative action programs--United States","Discrimination in employment--United States","Busing for school integration--Massachusetts--Boston","Anti-apartheid activists--United States","Anti-apartheid movements--United States","Assassination--Investigation--Tennessee--Memphis","Assassination--Investigation--United States","Governmental investigations--Tennessee--Memphis","Governmental investigations--United States","Conspiracies--United States","Political crimes and offenses--United States","Political violence--United States","Violence--United States","Rotundas--Georgia--Atlanta","Crypts--Georgia--Atlanta","Human rights","Jim's Grill (Memphis, Tenn.)","Georgia State Capitol (Atlanta, Ga.)","New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (Lithonia, Ga.)","Lorraine Motel (Memphis, Tenn.)","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968","Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change","Dexter Avenue Baptist Church (Montgomery, Ala.)","Ebenezer Baptist Church (Atlanta, Ga.)","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Washington, D.C., 1963","Martin Luther King, Jr., Day--United States","Martin Luther King, Jr., Day--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Coretta Scott King (1927-2006)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/coretta-scott-king-1927-2006/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"[article name],\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Ray, James Earl, 1928-1998","Jowers, Loyd, -2000","Gandhi, Mahatma, 1869-1948","Mandela, Nelson, 1918-2013","Mandela, Winnie","King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006--Death and burial","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Assassination","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Death and burial"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tnn_npldl_nbljonese1011clip1","title":"Oral history interview with Edward F. Jones, 2006 November 03, excerpt 17","collection_id":"tnn_npldl","collection_title":"Nashville Public Library Digital Collections Portal: Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Pyle, Cabot Pollard"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["Jones, Edward F., 1924-"],"dc_date":["2006-11-03"],"dcterms_description":["An excerpt from an oral history interview with Nashville business and civic leader Edward F. (Eddie) Jones, conducted on 03 November 2006 by Cabot Pyle as part of the Nashville Public Library's Nashville Business Leaders Oral History Project:  The Turner Interviews.  Jones discusses the civil rights movement in Nashville.  The complete interview, as well as an index, is available in the repository."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Civil Rights Online Collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Excerpted from:  NBLJonesE digital recording converted from wav to mp3 format in 2006.","Nashville Business Leaders Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library."],"dcterms_subject":["Businesspeople--Tennessee--Nashville","Civic leaders--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Nashville","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Nashville (Tenn.)--History--Sources","Nashville (Tenn.)--Race relations","Nashville (Tenn.)--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Edward F. Jones, 2006 November 03, excerpt 17"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Nashville Public Library (Tenn.). Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.library.nashville.org/u?/nr,689"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["U.S. and international copyright laws protect this digital content, which is provided for educational purposes only and may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed for any other purpose without written permission. Please contact the Special Collections Division of the Nashville Public Library, 615 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219. Telephone (615) 862-5782."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["audio/mp3 (3 min.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Edward F., 1924- --Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":265,"next_page":266,"prev_page":264,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3168,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}