{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_179","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part two","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":["William Gordon Associates"],"dc_date":["2006-06-30"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part two"],"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/179"],"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\nATTACHMENT \"A\" Brief Biographical Information: Dr. David E. Bartz Dr. Percy Bates Dr. William M. Gordon Mr. William R. Gordon Mr. Charles L. Patin, Jr. RESIDENCE: The Meadows 520 Rutland Place Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 345-4490 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 348-5461 VITA (For Desegregation Only) DAVID E. BARTZ OFFICE: 2320/2327 Buzzard Hall Eastern Illinois University Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 581-6668 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 581-6673 E-mail: cfdebl@edu.edu E-mail: debartz@eiu.edu PERSONAL INFORMATION: Date of Birth: 2/5/46 Marital Status: Wife - Deborah Ann Children - Brett (9-26-79), Dallas (1-11-85), Cody (1-14-87) CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Professor of Educational Administration (Emeritus) (Since August, 1978) EDUCATION: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan B.S. Degree - Business Education Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan M.A. Degree - General School Administration and Supervision MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (Credit via Western Michigan University) Ed.D. in Educational Leadership EMPLOYMENT: Secondary Teacher and Community School Director Galien, Michigan (900 students K-12) Assistant Junior High Principal Dowagiac, Michigan (4,400 students K-12\n1,000 in J.H.) Junior High Principal Caledonia, Michigan (2,100 students K-12\n500 in J.H.) 6/15/06 1967 1969 1972 January, 1968- June, 1969 July, 1969- June, 1970 July, 1970- June, 1971 David E. Bartz EMPLOYMENT: (cont.) MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (NOTE: This was not employment, but residence for Ed.D.) Leader of Personnel Skill Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Assistant Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Acting Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Professor Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Desegregation Consulting Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan Pontiac Urban League, Pontiac, Michigan Decatur Public Schools, Decatur, Illinois Eau Claire Public Schools, Eau Claire, Michigan Caddo Parish, Shreveport, Louisiana Champaign Public Schools, Champaign, Illinois East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois Ladue Public Schools, St. Louis, Missouri State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (St. Louis Area) State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (Kansas City Area) Page 2 July, 1971- August, 1972 August, 1972- June, 1973 June, 1973- June, 1976 July and August, 1976 September 1976- August, 1978 September, 1978 through present 1972 1975 1979 1979-1981 1980 1980, 1981 1980, 1981\nand March, 2000 to March, 2004 1981 1981 I 1982, 1983 1981, 1982 1985 Woodlawn Hills School District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1982 David E. Bartz Consulting, Desegregation (cont.) Sacramento Public Schools, Sacramento, California Superintendents' Council for the Tri-Districts (Benton Harbor, Coloma, and Eau Claire, Michigan) lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Lubbock Public Schools, Lubbock, Texas Urbana Public Schools (Race Relations) Coloma Public Schools, Coloma, Michigan Newport News, Virginia, Public Schools Midland, Texas, Independent School District (Unitary Status) Dallas, Texas, Independent School District Pulaski County Arkansas (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School District) Expert Witness Desegregation Consulting, Desegregation Page 3 1986 1985, 1986 1991 1991, 1992, 1993 1978 through 2001 1994 1995 October, 2001 to April, 2003 November, 2005 to present Federal District Court, St. Louis, Missouri 1982 St. Louis Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1982, 1996, 1998 Benton Harbor, Coloma, \u0026amp; Eau Claire Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Lubbock, Texas 1991 Federal District Court, Dallas, Texas 2003 Book The Effects of School Desegregation on Achievement and Motivation. Co-edited with Martin L. Maehr, JAi Press\nGreenwich, Conn., March. 1984 David E. Bartz United States Federal Court for the Western District of Michigan - Judge Douglas W. Hillman and the Executive Director of the Court's Appointment Community Education Council (James F.A. Turner) Award for Significant Leadership Role with Respect to Support of the Court's Desegregation Plan in the Berry Case (Benton Harbor, Eau Claire, and Coloma, Michigan) Additional Activities 41 Articles Published 46 Presentations at the National Level 26 Presentations at the State Level 26 Presentations at the Regional (within state) Level Page 4 1984 Dr. PERCY BATES EDUCATION Ph.D. M.A. B.S. PRESENT POSITION 2244 Pinegrove Ct. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Home (734) 665-8341 Office (734) 763-9910 Fax (734) 763-2137 Email: pbates@umich.edu Educational Psychology, University of Michigan, 1968 Major Concentration: Special Education Vocational Rehabilitation, Wayne State University, 1961 Major: Rehabilitation Counseling Minor: Special Education Biology, Central Michigan University, 1958 Minors: Sociology, Psychology Director PEO-Programs for Educational Opportunity (Desegregation/Equity Assistance Center), School of Education, University of Michigan  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1987 - Present Professor of Education University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Member, The Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity m Athletics, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 2002-2003 Division Director, Curriculum, Teaching and Psychological Studies, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984-1987 Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director, Office of Special Education, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1980-1981 Assistant Dean, Service and Institutional Relations and Professor of Education, University of Michigan, 1973-1980 Associate Professor and Chairperson, Program in Special Education, University of Michigan, 1969-1973 Assistant Professor and Director, Mental Impainnent Teacher Training Program, University of Michigan, 1965-1969 Psychologist, Boys' Training School, Whitmore Lake, Michigan, 1963-1964 Psychologist and Director, Program in Educable Mentally Impaired, Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1961-1964 Teacher, Special Education, Detroit Public Schools, 1959-1961 - Page2 SELECTED RELATED ACTIVITIES \u0026amp; HONORS. Recipient, 2005 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award Member, National Council for the Project on Equal Education Rights (PEER), 1991-present Chair, Higher Education Commission, National Alliance of Black School Educators, 1989-1993 Member, Executive Board, Father Patrick Jackson House, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997- present Member, Academic Perfonnance Committee, University of Michigan, 1986-1989\n1990-present Member, Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Michigan 1986-1989\n1990-present LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION: PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Association on Mental Retardation American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association Council for Exceptional Children Michigan Psychological Association K-12 Pennanent Teaching Certificate School Psychologist Licensed Psychologist - State of Michigan National Alliance of Black School Educators National Association for Multicultural Education National Association for School Desegregation RECENT SELECTED PRESENTATIONS \"Resolving Societal Conflicts through Traditional Techniques-Are They Working?\" Program for Conflict Management Alternative Seminar. Rockford (IL) School District, Issues relating to over-representation of minorities in Special Education through desegregation efforts. Kansas City, Kansas, Controlled Choice, Is It Effective In Desegregation? RECENT GRANTS AND AWARDS Title IV, Equity Assistance Center Awards, 2002-2005 Title II, Improving Teacher Quality (MI) State Activities Competitive Grant Program. 2003-2005 Dwight D. Eisenhower Higher Education Professional Development Grant, Family Math, Family Science, Playtime Is Science, 2000-2001 Kellogg Foundation - Closing the A\u0026lt;\n.hievement Gap, 2001-2002 Percy Bates Page 3 SELECTED CONSULTANCIES Darlington County South Carolina School District. Developing a Magnet School to Reduce Racial Isolation, On-going Consultation, Expert Witness. East Baton Rouge School District, Court Appointed Education Monitor. Evaluated Magnet School Program and proposed changes for improvement with Dr. William Gordon. Highland Park Board of Education. Consultant to the Superintendent, School Psychologist. Assessment and managing at-risk students. Hunter College, New York, New York. Consultant to the Dean of Education. Evaluated program in Special Education and programs to prepare teachers for urban areas. Michigan Department of Social Services, Special Education with hard to place adoptive children, Flint, Michigan. University of Alabama, Consultant to the Dean of Education and Chairperson of Special Education in the development of a Ph.D. program. U.S. Department of Justice, Review Desegregation Cases, re: Unitary Status. EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Reviewer, Book - \"Academically Gifted,\" McGraw Hill. Reviewer, Book - \"Children in Dual Settings,\" Longman Press. Reviewer, Book - \"Planning for Choice,\" New England Center for Equity Assistance. Reviewer, Book - \"Toward Accountability of Teachers, Accountability in American Education. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS \"Controlled Choice: A New and Effective Desegregation Method,\" in Charles v. Willie, U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the Magnet School/Desegregation Workshop, Miami, FL, January 1995. \"Proceedings of the Magnet School/Title IV Desegregation Programs,\" U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the 1993 Conference in Washington, DC, December 1993. Bates, P. \u0026amp; Gardner, J. Emmett. Attitudes and Attributions on Use of Microcomputers in School by Students Who are Mentally Handicapped, March 1991. Bates, P. \"Desegregation: Can We Get There From Here?\" Phi Delta Kappan, September 1990. Page4 Bates, P., Brame, W., Darden, J. \u0026amp; Dawson, M. The State of Black Michigan 1989. Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, 1989. Bates, P. \"Black and White High School Dropout Rates in Michigan: The Inequality Persists,\" The State of Black Michigan: 1989, East Lansing, Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, submitted March 1989. Bates, P. \u0026amp; Wilson, T. Effective Schools: Critical Issues in the Education of Black Children, Ann Arbor, National Alliance of Black School Educators [in press]. Bryant, B., \u0026amp; Bates, P. \"The Future of Black Americans Depends Upon Intermediate and Long-Term Structural Programs.\" Submitted to The Journal of Negro Education, July, 1988. \"The Challenge of Evaluation and Documentation\" in Bert Sharp (ed.) Directions for Teacher Education, National Support Systems, University of Minnesota, 1982. Mainstreaming: Our Current Knowledge Base (ed.), National Support Systems Project, University of Minnesota, 1981. \"The Role of Special Education in the 1980's: An Existential Question,\" Counterpart, Nov., 1980. \"Exceptional Children in Intermediate and Secondary Science Programs\" (with Edward Hoffman and Terry West), Science Education, February, 1978. \"Anatomy of a Dean's Project,\" in Judy Grossenick and Maynard Reynolds (eds.), Negotiations of Teacher Education, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Implications of Mainstreaming for Teacher Education,\" in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Mainstreaming: An Overview,\" in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. Mainstreaming Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives (ed.), (with Terry West and Rudolf B. Schmerl), Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Parents - A Valuable Resource for Training Teachers to Work with the Special Child,\" Mental Retardation, April, 1976. \"A Systems Approach to a Taxonomy of Disadvantagement,\" (with Jesse Gordon and Don Harrison), Manpower Science Inc., 1973. \"Critical Review: The Right to an Appropriate Education,\" in Lawrence A. Kane, Julius Cohen, David Penrod and Thomas Shaffer (eds.) The Mentally Retarded and the Law, Mac Millan, 1973. \"James and John,\" Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. \"Through Different Eyes,\" Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. WILLIAM M. GORDON * Has been actively involved in school desegregation planning since 1968. * Has drawn over 80 school desegregation plans and has served as an expert witness in over 250 trial and hearings. * Was one of the first desegregation planners to develop and use magnet schools as a desegregation strategy. * Has represented defendant school districts, state departments of education. * He has also worked with several courts and recently served as a Court Monitor for the federal district court located in Baton rouge, Louisiana. * Has represented plaintiff groups that include the United states Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Neighborhood Legal Services and Private plaintiff groups. * Has been involved in developing approximately 10 voluntary desegregation plans for school districts. * Serves as a desegregation consultant for a number of school districts. * Has been consulted with a number of school districts seeking unitary status. * Has assisted in writing several successful magnet school grants during the past two Magnet School Assistance Act cycles. * Has thirty years as a professional educator serving as a teacher, coach, administrator and college professor. * Has written on a wide variety of administration and desegregation topics and is generally recognized as an expert in all aspects of school desegregation. June 17, 2006 Resume William M. Gordon Ed.D, J.D. Dr. William M. Gordon is recognized as an expert in school desegregation, school organization, school administration and educational policy. He is currently a professor Emeritus of Educational Leadership. He formerly taught at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio and at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. During his over 34 years in public education, Dr. Gordon, has taught in urban, rural and suburban schools as well as at the university level. He began his teaching career in 1959 as a substitute teacher in the Chicago City schools. After several years of teaching he served for a short period of time as a principal of an elementary and later as a principal of a junior high school. He has also served as university professor for USAID at the University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa. Dr. Gordon has a B.A. degree in Finance and Banking and a M.Ed. in Remedial and Diagnostic Education from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. His doctorate in educational administration and secondary education is from Indiana University. He also has a law degree from the University of South Carolina and is licensed to practice in South Carolina. Following the completion of his doctorate degree at Indiana University, Dr. Gordon joined the faculty of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Where he taught for 14 years. During his tenure at Miami University he progressed through the academic ranks becoming a tenured full professor in 1977. In 1968, while assuming his duties as an assistant professor at Miami University, he became a consultant in school desegregation for the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center working with Drs. Gordon Foster and Michael Stolee. During his 30 year association with the Florida Title IV Center he worked with over 40 desegregating school districts located throughout the former Region V eight state service area of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition to his work with the Florida Center he has served as an expert in school desegregation for local school districts, state departments of education, the U.S. Justice Department, the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, the NAACP, federal courts, and a variety of private plaintiff groups throughout the entire country. He also served for seven years as a court monitor in school desegregation for the U.S. District Court in Central Louisiana. In total he has been involved in over 80 separate school desegregation cases and has testified several hundred times. He has also worked successfully with a number of school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. Dr. Gordon has authored or co-authored four books, nine book chapters, 55 articles, and has also made a large number of presentations to educational groups and organizations. November 15,2005 Resume' William M. Gordon P.O. Box 550 Cell: Home: (828) (828) 606 3091 696 9753 Saluda, North CaroliQ~ 28773 Fax: (828) 698 6762 Education J.D. Ed.D. Post Grad M.Ed. E-Mail: twogoatroad@aol.com 1985 University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Admitted to practice in South Carolina 1968 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Major: Secondary Education, Curriculum and Administration Minor: Anthropology and Sociology 1966 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Administration 1964 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Reading Minor: Curriculum Post Grad .1962 DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois Major: Mathematics and certification B.S. (Bus.) 1957 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Finance and Banking Minor: Economics and Accounting Professional.Positions 1998-present 1990-98 1991-95 1988-90 1986-88 1985-86 Professor Emeritus, Educational Leadership, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Professor of Educational Leadership, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio External Examiner - Njala University, Sierra Leone, West Africa (assignment covered from 3-5 weeks each of five summers) Professor of Educational Leadership and Executive Program Development Officer, College of Education, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Private Law Practice, Greenville, South Carolina Professor of Education, Primary Educational Improvement Project, The University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa 1 1977-82 1968-77 1966-68 1965-66 1962-65 1957-62 ProfessDr of Education, Department of Administration, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Assistant and Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Supervisor of Student Teachers, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Supervisor of Student Teachers, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Principal and Teacher of Mathematics, High School and Junior High School, Fairborn, Ohio Principal, Teacher and Substitute Teacher, Chicago Public Schools and Skokie, Illinois Public Schools. Adjunct Professorships 1999 - Present 1998 - Summer 1996 - Summer 1984-85 1984 1979 1970 1970 Awards and Honors 1993 1992 Framingham State - Teaching in the International Education Program 13 international sites - Tampico Mexico, Rabat Morocco, Monterray Mexico, Kowitce, Poland, Santo Domingo, Trinidad, Bahrain (2), Warsaw Poland, Managua Nicarragua, Guatalajara Mexico (3), Beirut Lebanon, Maracaibo Venezuela College of New Jersey - Mallorca, Spain Trenton State University - Tele Vive, Israel Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina, Spring Term each year (Research) Northwest Louisiana State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana, Summer Term (Administrative Theory) Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, Summer Term (Curric-ilum and Foundations) AACTE Project 35, Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, Summer Term (Developing Instructional Materials and Strategies for Job Corps Basic Instruction) Western College for Women, Oxford, Ohio, Fall Term (Reading and Language Arts) Outstanding Achievement Award, Pennsylvania Legal Services Faculty Excellence Award for Scholarship, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University 2 1972 1970 1969 1964 \"Award of Merit\" American Association of College Teachers of Education \"Outstanding Professor,\" Miami University Omicron Delta Kappa Phi Delta Kappa Publications Books The Reading Curriculum, Praeger Publishing Co., New York, 1982. Desegregating America's Schools, Longman, Inc., New York, 1980, Hughes and L. Hillman) (with L. Things Take Time, University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida, 1974, Editor and Contributor) Modern Mathematics for the Seventh Grade, Old Orchard Schools, Skokie, Illinois, 1961, (Contributor) Monographs The Law of Home Schooling, No. 52 in the NOLPE Monograph Series, National Organization on Legal Problems in Education,. Topeka, Kansas, 1994, (with C.J. Russo and A.S. Miles) Chapters Editor and contributor - \"Chapter 7:Educational Programs\" American Overseas Schools, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, Indiana (2000) \"Philbert: Battling Bond Barriers\" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) \"Mistakes Beginning Superintendents Make\" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) \"Systemic School Desegregation\" Case Citations 1992: Fourteenth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas 1992 \"Employment in General\" Case Citations 1992: Twelfth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1992 3 \"Magnet Schools,\" Advances in Motivation and Achievement, JAI Press, Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut, 1984 (with L. Hughes and L. Hillman) \"Frontiers of Law, Chapter XIII, The Courts and Education, The National Society for the Study of Education, Clifford Hooker, (ed), Chicago, 1978 (with L. Hughes) \"The Potential of Satellite Technology for Elementary Education,\" The Educational Uses of Broadcast Satellites, Educational Technology Publications, Washington, D.C. 1975 \"Desegregation Data,\" Handbook VIII: Community Characteristics, State Education and Report Series, USDHEW, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1973 4 Articles \"School Desegregation Cases: The'Good Faith' Requirement\" West's Education Law Reporter, Vol. 159, January 31, 2002, pages 407-417. (Cite: 159 Educ.L.R. 407) \"School Desegregation Cases: Why Moving Toward Unitary Status Makes Sense Now\" Louisiana Board Member, Louisiana School Board's-Association, Vol.18, No.3, Summer 2001. \"There's A Weapon in the School\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 28, No 96, Fall 2001, Pg 22 \"Weapons in Schools\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 28, No. 95, Spring/Summer 2001, Pg 18. \"Terminating Employment in International Schools\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No. 94, Winter 2000, Page 17. ~Dismissing the Sexual Predator\" AAIE Inter Ed. Vol 26, No. 91, Winter 1999, Page 10 \"Sidebar: Throwing Out the Trash,\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No.92, Summer/Spring 2000, page 15. \"Sidebar: A Wake-up Notice,\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No.90, Fall, 1999, pa~e 10. \"Balancing Confidentiality and the Need to Report,\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 26, No. 89, summer, 1999, page 13. \"Controversy in the Curriculum\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No. 88, Spring 1999 \"Where You Can Be Sued!\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25, No. 87, Winter 1998/99, page 12. \"The Violent Worker\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25,No 86, Fall 1998, page 11. \"Drug Testing of Students and Staff\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 25, No. 85, Summer 1998. page 14. \"Sexual Harassment of Students by Staff\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 25, No 84, Spring 1998, page 25. \"Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?\" Record for Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 17, No.1 \u0026amp; 2, 1997, pages 80-83. (with Reginald Green) \"Student Records\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 24, No.83, Winter 1997, Page 30. \"Copy Right or Wrong\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 24, No 82 Fall 1997, Page 15. \"Home Schooling: The In-house Alternative\" School Business Affairs, Vol 62, No. 12. December, 1996, pages 16-20. \"Religious Activities in Public Education: The Case Against,\" Journal For A 5 Just and Caring Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1996, pages 157 -163. \"The Search for Reasonableness: Legal Issues in Student Discipline\" School Business Affairs, voi. 61, No. 7, July, 1995, pages 18-21. 6 \"Compulsory Education Requirements and Student Work Permits\" Wright Angles, Vol. 7, No. 4, November, 1994: pages 1-2. \"The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown\" Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 63, No.3 (1994), pgs 310-322. \"The Development of Professional and Social Relationships as a Result of Cohort Group Instruction\" Catalyst for Change, Vol 23, No.l, Fall 1993, pgs 14-17 (With William Nelson, June Kisch, Samuel Harris) \"Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?\" Wright Angles, Vol.5, No.2 October 22, 1993 (with William Nelson and Reginald Green) \"Monitoring Desegregation,\" National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Vol 7, No. 1, 1993-94, pg 44-49 (with David E. Bartz) \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts,\" West Education Law Reporter Vol 82, 1992, pg 283-289 [cite as: 80 Ed.Law Rptr 283) - (With David E. Bartz) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 2, No.4, October, 1993, pg 533-539. \"HIV Infection: Legal Implications for Educators\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 13, No. l, Fall/winter 1992. (with Charles J. Russo, Albert Miles, Terrence Leas) \"Why Be Concerned About School Policy?\" Wright Angles Vol. 4, No.2, Nov. 30, 1992 \"Agency Shop Fees and The Supreme Court: Union Control and Academic Freedom\" West Education Law Reporter Vol. 73, 1992, pg 607-615 [cite as: 73 Ed.Law Rptr 607) - (with Charles J. Russo and Albert J. Miles) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No.3, July, 1992, Pg 277-283. \"A survey of Observation/Participation and Student Teaching Experiences\" National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, Vol. 2, No.l, March 1992. \"School Children With AIDS: A Legal Analysis\" Religion and Public Education, Vol 18, No.3, Winter 1991, pg 259-267. (With Will MacCarther) \"Home Schooling in North Carolina\" School Law Bulletin, Vol. 22, No.3, Fall, 1991, pg 13-17. (With Charles Russo, and Patricia Lynes) \"The Reasonable Accommodations Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.\" West's Educational Law Reporter, Vol. 69, 1991, pg 1-8. [Cite as: 69 Ed.Law Rptr 1) (With Dr. Albert Miles and Dr. Charles Russo) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No. 1, January, 1992 pg 1-8. [Cite as: 1 Ed.Law Qtr 1). \"Debates in Education - RESOLVE 'Education Would Improve if Public Funds Were Made Available to Assist Church-Related Private Elementary And Secondary Schools, Through Tax Deductions Payable to Parents, Voucher Systems, or Equivalent Means'\" Presentation in opposition to the resolution. Curriculum Review, Vol 31, No. 2, October 1991, Pg 6-10. 7 \"The Principal's Hidden Resource: Student Government,\" American Secondary Education, Vol. 18, No.3, 1990, pg 30-31. 8 \"Serving the Needs of High School Students\" Catalyst for Change Vol 20, No.l, Fall 1990 (With Thomas Kelberly) \"Home Schooling and Compulsory Attendance Laws\" National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, Pages 430-433. \"Collaborative School/University Renewal Project\" (with Frederick Gies), National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, pages 67-75 \"Wanted: Black Teachers ... Apply at Any Local School Board,\" Journal-Ohio School Board's Association, (With Will Mccarther) Volume 34, No 2, (March 1990) pg 8-9. \"New Direction in Affirmative Action,\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 1990) pp. 29-30 \"Due Process and School Suspension Revisited,\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Spring/Summer), 1989, pp. 21-24 \"School Desegregation: A Look at the 70's and 80's,\" Journal for Law and Education, Vol. 18 (Spring, 1989), pp. 189-212 \"Higher Education and the Law in the 1980's,\" Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XXXI, No. 4 (July/August, 1980), pp. 61-62 (with L. Hughes and R. Simpson) \"The View From the Top: What's Beleaguering Superintendents Th~se Days?\" Catalyst for Change, Vol 10, No. 1 (Fall, 1980) pp. 22-27 (with L. Hughes) \"Advice to a Young Administrator,\" The American School Board Journal, Vol.166, No. 12 (Dec. 1979), pp 15-16 (with L. Hughes) \"How to Make a School Closing Make Sense,\" The American School Board Journal, Vol. 167, No. 2 (Feb. 1979) pp. 31-33 (with L. Hughes) \"Communications Satellites and the Future of Elementary Education,\" World Future Society Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 3 (May/June, 1978) pp. 11-16 \"What Now Senior?\", Journal of Sigma Phi Epsilon, Vol. 73, No. 3 1976), Pg. 4 (Feb., \"School Desegregation - Is The Bussing for U.S.?\", NOLPE School Law Journal (Spring, 1973), pp. 27-36 (with R. Simpson) \"The School and the Social Revolution of the American Black,\" Review, Miami University (Spring, 1971), pp. 13-16 \"Learning as a Classroom Activity,\" Ohio Department of Elementary School Principals Journal (August, 1970) pp. 25-26 \"IMPALLA - A New Approach to Language Arts Instruction,\" The English Journal (May 1970), pp. 534-539 (With P. Whitesell and D. Joy) 9 \"Educational Plans for the Inner City,\" Review, Miami University (Winter, 1969), pp 14-19 \"The Teacher in the Inner City,\" Review, Miami University (Fall, 1968) pp. 22- 29 10 \"Reading, Statistics, i/t/a?\", Review, Miami University (Winter, 45-58 Papers 1966) pp. \"Fulfilling Court Requirements in Order to Prepare a Successful Magnet School Application\" Magnet Schools of America Conference New Orleans, Louisiana - September 10, 1977 \"Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order\" Education Law Association Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington November 20-22, 1997 \"Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order\", 43 rd Annual Conference of the Education Law Association, November 20- 22, 1997, Seattle, Washington. (With Charles Patin, partner with Keen, Miller Hawthorn, Baton Rouge, Louisiana) \"Move from Monitored Desegregation to Unitary Status\" Magnet Schools of America Conference, September 12-13, New Orleans, Louisiana (with Michael Garrard and Charles Patin partners with Keen, Miller, Hawthorne, Baton Rouge and William R. Gordon, Center for Program Design, Saluda, North Carolina) \"Desegregation Plans: From Pupil Assignments to Magnets\" National Associa_tion for Legal Problems in Education annual convention, November 17-19, 1994, San Diego, California. \"Qualifying for the Magnet School Grants Program: Eligibility for Assistance\" National Association of Magnet School Development, March 3-5, 1994, Washington, D.C. \"Child Abuse by School Personnel\" with Dean Ponds and Freddie A. Banks. American Association of School Administrators annual convention, February 11, 1994, San Francisco, California \"Legal Implications of Sexual Harassment and Molestation of Students with B. Hamstead, Roger Hepworth, Michael Weinstock, and Claudia Speakman. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. \"Desegregation: Representing Plaintiffs and Defendants in Unitary Hearings\" with David E. Bartz and Mike Moses. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1992, Phoenix, Arizona \"AIDS/HIV and the Schools\" Indiana State University, Annual School Law Conference, April 10, 1992, Terre Haute, Indiana \"Students and Teachers Who Test HIV Positive: Legal Issues and Implications\" with Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles, National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 23, 1991, Orlando, Florida \"Research in Educational Law: Doctoral Dissertation Criteria\" National 11 Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 22, 1991, Orlando, Florida \"The Policy Implications of Home Schooling\". With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles. annual conference of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), New Orleans, March 2, 1991. 12 ''Home Schooling\" With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles Presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the National Organization for Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE}, San Antonio, November 15-17, 1990. (ERIC Document #ED 332 291) ''Recruiting and Training Young Administrators.for the 1990's\" Presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Los Angeles, August 15, 1990 \"Dilematic Consequences of a Collaborative School/University Renewal Project\" Prepared with Dr. Frederick Gies. Presented at the annual AASA Conference, San Francisco, California, February 24, 1990. \"Observation and Participation Will Solve the Problems of Teacher Preparation\" Research study with Ors. Will Mccarther and James Uphoff. Presented at the annual AACTE Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 22, 1990. \"Pitfalls to Collaboration\" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 14, 1989 \"A Knowledge Base Model for Program Development\" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 18, 1989 .(ERIC Document #EA021797} \"The E.J. Brown Collaborative Model\" Spring Session of the Ohio Conference of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO}, Columbus, Ohio, April 28, 1989 \"The Mechanics of Desegregating a School System\" National Convention of the American Association of School Administrators AASA), Anaheim, California, February, 1980 \"Environmental Factors and the School as a Societal Institution,\" Annual Confer~nce of the American Education Research Association (AERA} San Francisco, California, March 1974 (panel} \"The Possible Impact of Satellite Technology on Structure, Role, Function and Subject Matter at the Elementary Level of Education\" Fourth Annual National Educational Technology Conference, San Francisco, California, March, 1974 Book Reviews Review of: School Law: Cases and Concepts (4th Edition) by Michael W.LaMorte. Published in West's Education Law Reporter, Vol.83, pg 27-29, August 12, 1993 [cite as 83 Ed.Law. Rptr 27] Review of: American Public School Law (3rd Edition} by Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol. 12, No. 2, Spring/Summer, 1992 Review of: The Constitution and American Public Education by Anvil Morris. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol 11, No.1, Fall/Winter 1990 13 Review of: Principal's Handbook: Current Issues in School Law. Edited by William E. Camp, Julie K. Underwood, and Mary Jane Connelly. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol 10, No.2, Summer/Spring 1990 14 Review of: Schooling and Disabilities, 88th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Edited by D. Biklen, D. Ferguson, and A. Ford. Published in National forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 3, No.2, 1990-91 Review of: Public School Law: Teaching and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall/Winter 1989 Review of: To Rise Above Principal by Joseph F. Martin. Published in The AASA Professor Vol. 12, No. 1, Summer, 1989 Review of: Locating and Correcting Reading Difficulties by E.E. Ekwall. Published in the National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 1989 Review of: Introduction to Educational Research by C.M. Charles. Published in National Forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1988 Editing Authors Committee - West's Educational Law Reporter Legal Review Editor for Record in Educational Administration and Supervision Policy Board for National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Professional and Academic Association Memberships (Past and Present) Association for Advancement of International Education (AAIE) American Association of School Administrators (AASA) American Association of College Teachers in Education (AACTE) National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA) National Organization for Legal Problems in.Education (NOLPE) name changed to Educational Law Association Association for Teacher Education (ATE) National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) American Bar Association (ABA) South Carolina Bar Association American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Related Professional Activities Court Monitor: U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana Management Consultant: U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Director: Miami University Competency Based Teacher Education Project, Director: Miami University Right-to-Read Project Director: Miami University/Dayton Teacher Corps Project Director: Miami University Developmental Education Project Ohio Manpower Commission 15 Partial listing of education cases where Dr. William M. Gordon has been directly involved in the litigation. Amy Adams v. Kaech (P1.a.intiff 1 ) Anderson and the United States v. Madison County School District (Plaintiff United States) Andrews v. Monroe City School Board (United States) Taylor v. Ouachita Parish Armstrong v. Birmingham Board of Education (United States) Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board (Defendant Eau Claire) -Boyd v. Pointe Coupee Parish Schools (United States) Brinkman v. Dayton Board of Education (Defendant Dayton Schools) Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati (Plaintiff NAACP) Cowan and the United States v. Bolivar County Board of Education. (United States) Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Defendant East Baton Rouge Schools) Davis v. East Baton Rouoe Parish School Board (Monitor for the Court) John Doe (Kinney) v. Madison Board of Education (Plaintiff) Duhon v. Tatje (United States) Harris v. St John the Baptist Parish School Board Evans v. Buchanan (Plaintiff Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware Ganaway v. Charleston County Board of Education (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Graham and the United Scates v. Evangeline Parish (Plaintiff United States) Hilson v. Outz (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) H.O., A Minor v. The School District of the City of Philadelphia (Plaintiff) Hodges v. Montgomery County Board of Education (United States) Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Plaintiff Neighborhood Legal Services) Jones and the United States v. Caddo Parish School System (United States) 1 Party represented. 17 Kelly v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville (Plaintiff) Lee v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) Lee and the United States v. Dotham County, Alabama (Legal Defense Fund) Lee and the United States v. Macon County Board of Education (Decatur) Lee and United States v. Randolph County (United States) Martin v. Ferndale Michigan School Board (United States) NAACP v. City of Thomasville Georgia School District (Plaintiffs) Penick v. Columbus Board of Education (Defendant State of Ohio) Reed v. Rhodes (Defendant State of Ohio) Stanley v. Darlington County School District (United States) Sheff v. O'Neil (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Sinajini and The Navajo Nation v. Board of Education of the San Juan School District. (Plaintiffs Sinajini, The Navajo Nation and United States) S-1 v. Turlington (Plaintiff Florida Rural Legal Services) Sylvester Vaughns et al and the NACCP v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Maryland (Defendant) Thomasville Branch of the NAACP et al v. City of Thomasville School District (Plaintiff) United States v. Ferndale, Michigan (United States) United States and Charles Ridley v. State of Georgia: Meriwether County Board of Education (United States) United States V. Avoyelles Parish School Board (United States) United States V. Bessemar Alabama Board of Education (United States) United States v. Berkeley County, South Carolina (United States) United States v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Defendant Chicago Board of Education) United States v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Lucy Florida (United States) United States v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) United States and Coleman v. Midland Independent School District (United States) United States v. Colleton County School District (United States) 18 United States v. DeSota Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Florence County School District No.1 (United States) United States v. Kansas City Unified School District #500 (United States) United States v. Lincoln Parish School Board (United States) United States v. The State of Mississippi and McComb Municipal Separate School District United States v. Marion County School District (United States) United States v. Port Arthur Texas School Board (United States) United States v. Red River Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Texas Education Agency: Lubbock Independent School District (United States) Virgie Lee Valley, et. al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, et al. (Defendant) Welton J. Charles Jr. et al and the Uniter States v. Ascension Parish School Board et al (Defendant School District) Williams and the United States v. Iberville Parish School Board (United States) Contracted Studies Arkansas Department of Education, Feasibility study for Arkansas Department of Education to determine if the Pulaski County School District should continue to exist Jefferson Parish School District, Louisiana (Study undertaken for the district) Unitah School District (Study to determine feasibility of breaking off a new school district for the Ute Tribe) 19 June 17,2006 RESUME' William R. Gordon Post Office Box 595 19 South Lake Summit Road Saluda, North Carolina 28773 Education 1989-91 1983-85 1984 1977-83 Experience (704) 692 3753 Post Masters M.F.A B.F.A. Professional Education Courses Required for Certification in Art Education - Florida International University, Miami Dade College and St Thomas University College of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina Charles E. Daniel Center, Clemson University, Genoa, Italy College of Fine Arts, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1985 - present Consultant in school desegregation 1998-04 1996- 98 1992-95 1992-97 1992-96 Facilities Monitor for the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Boys and Girls Club of America - Head of the art Program for local children in Hendersonville, N.C. Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Wright State Present University, Dayton, Ohio (Teaching: Drawing and Painting) Summer art program for elementary school children conducted through Isothermal Community College. (four one week terms open to school children in Poke County, North Carolina) Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Isothermal Community College, Spindale, North Carolina (Teaching: Art History, Two Dimensional Media, Painting, Drawing and Composition, Life Drawing, Special Topics in Art 1994-95 Visiting Associate Professor of Art, Blue Ridge Community College, Hendersonville, North Caorlina 1992 Teaching Assistant in Elementary Art Education, Art Department, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina 1988-92 Head Instructor and teacher for Art Education, North Miami Elementary School, Dade County, Florida - Teaching responsibility for approximately 920 students. 1985-86 1984-85 Writings Studio Artist, producing primarily paintings and drawings, Chicago, Illinois. Graduate Assistant instructing at the Charles E. Daniel Center, Genoa, Italy and Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. \"Using a Compliance Analysis Prior to Seeking Unitary Status in a School Desegregation Case\" by William m. Gordon and William R. Gordon July 21, 2000 (unpublished) Consulting Facilities study underway in the Unitah School District for the Ute Native Ameriucan Tribe. Jefferson Parish School District - Facilities study of the entire 82 school, school district in preparation for filing a motion for unitary status. Duhon v. Tatie (St. John the Baptist Parish) Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board Davis and the United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Court Monitor - Facilities) Stanley v. Darlington, South Carolina Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board Wright State University summer workshops for teachers and administrators 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 3 Charles L. Patin, Jr. Partner Legislative Litigation 225.389.3430 charlic.patin@keanmiller.com CHARLES PATIN Charles Patin is a partner in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan \u0026amp; Jarman, L.L.P. Charles joined Kean Miller in 1989. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Assistant Executive Counsel to the Governor of Louisiana from 1988 until 1989, and from 1980 through 1988 he served as Chief of the Civil Division of the Louisiana Department of Justice. Charles assists clients in the areas of school desegregation law, state constitutional and general regulatory matters, and general civil litigation. Charles presently represents two Louisiana public school districts in ongoing school desegregation lawsuits. In May 2004, Charles successfully negotiated an agreement on behalf of the Ascension Parish School District with the United States Department of Justice and local counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund that resulted in the filing of a Joint Motion for Entry Agreed Judgement and the entry of a judgement declaring the school district unitary in Welton J. Charles, et al. and United States of America v. Ascension Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 3257, U.S.D.C. M.D. La. In Clifford Eugene Davis, Jr., et al. and United Stated of America v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 1662, U.S.D.C. M.D. La., Charles served as the lead counsel for the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and successfully negotiated an agreement resulting in the entry of a Consent Decree that subsequently set the stage for the school district begin declared unitary. He recently co-authored a commentary with Dr. William M. Gordon entitled \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" which appeared in West's Education Law Reported, Vol. 159 No. 2, January 31, 2002. Charles has presented in tl1e area of school desegregation law at the 2002 annual meeting of the Education Law Association, an international aducation law associated comprised of educators and attorneys. Representative Experience:  Successful negotiation of a consent decrees in school desegregation cases which served to eliminate the pairing and clustering of schools.  Successful filings of motions for partial unitary status in school desegregation litigation.  Representation of clients before state regulatory agencies.  Representation of clients in matters involving state constitutional issues. Charles Patin Education: Charlie earned his B.S. from Louisiana State University in 1971 and his J.D. from the LSU Law Center in 1974. Admissions: Admitted to bar, 1974, Louisiana\nadmitted to bar, 1979, United States Supreme Court. Admitted to practice before United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and all federal district courts in Louisiana. Memberships: Co-chair, Governor's Special Committee on the Composition and Administration of the Judiciary Section, 1989\nSecretary, Special Committee on Judicial Electoral Processes, 1991\nSub-committee on Campaign Finance Practices, 1991\nChairman, Bench and Bar Section\nAmerican Bar Association\nAmerican Judicature Society (Board of Directors, 1992-1994)\nBoard of Examiners for Certified Court Reporters, 1993-1995\nLouisiana Organization for Judicial Excellance (Board of Directors, 1992-1995). [Captain, Infantry, U.S. Army Reserves, 1971-1979.] Past Member, Civil Justice Advisory Committee, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Community Service:  Past member, Board of Directors, Baton Rouge Chapter, Gulf Coast Conservation Association.  Past member, Board of Director, Playmakers.  Past member, Board of Directors, Blundon Home.  Past member, Louisiana Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution.  Graduate, Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce Leadership Class of 1999. ATTACHMENT \"B\" Specific Language of Legislation Creating this Feasibility Study SB457 Specific Language of Legislation Creating This Feasibility Study SECTION 26. SPECIAL LANGUAGE. NOT TO BE IN CORPORA TED INTO THE ARKANSAS CODE NOR PUBLISHED SEP ARA TEL Y AS SPECIAL, LOCAL AND TEMPORARY LAW. FEASIBILITY STUDY. The Department of Education shall authorize and fund a feasibility study costing up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). The purpose of the study shall be to evaluate and determine whether the Pulaski County Special School District should continue in existence by specifically addressing and evaluating the following: 1) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one district south of the Arkansas River\n2) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district bounda1ies in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock District north of the Arkansas River and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River\n3) whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District under either option would fut1her desegregation efforts of the districts and help all districts in gaining unitary status and in ending the desegregation case\nand, 4) to study and propose a plan to pursue the end of desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. A contract shall be signed no later than October 31, 2005 and the feasibility study completed no later than June 30, 2006. The provisions of this section shall be in effect only from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007. 1051887_1 ATTACHMENT \"C\" North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-2006 High School White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 587 (38.7%) 867 (57.2%) 63(4.1%) 1517 North Little Rock High (West) 647 (44.0%) 761 (51.8%) 61 (4.2%) 1469 Total High Schools 1234 (41.3%) 1628 (54.5%) 124 (4.2%) 2986 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1 %) 175 (82.9%) 2(1.0%) 211 Total Middle Schools 764 (36.3%) 1246 (59.3%) 92 (4.4%) 2102 Elementari: Schools Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 - Boone Park Elementary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Crestwood Elementary 288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8 (2.1%) 384 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) 1 (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19 (3.6%) 534 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41(12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9 (4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 (84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3 (1.0%) 317 Total Elementary Schools 1477 (32.9%) 2755 (61.3%) 259 (5.8%) 4491 TOT AL DISTRICT 3475 (36.3%) 5629 (58.8%) 475 (4.9%) 9579 I 051903-1 ATTACHMENT \"D\" Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 569 (50.4%) 522 (46.2%) 38 (3.4%) 1129 Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) 897 Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1 %) 245 (39.1 %) 24 (3.8%) 627 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1 %) 41(4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 2642 (52.2%) 2242 (44.3%) 173 (3.5%) 5057 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1 %) 29 (4.3%) 668 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) _m_ - Total Middle Schools 2024 (52.0%) 1693 (43.5%) 175 (4.5%) 3892 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30:5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Baker Elementary (Interdistrict) 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1 %) 529 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary (Interdistrict) 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Landmark Elementary 139 (44. l %) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%) 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1 %) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 - Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) 371 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 1051927-1 - Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 5184 (55.3%) 3715 (39.6%) 479 (5.1 %) 9378 TOT AL DISTRICT 9850 (53.7%) 7650 (41.7%) 827 (4.6%) 18327 1051927-1 ATTACHMENT \"E\" North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 76 (90.5%) 8 (9.5%) 0 84 North Little Rock High (West) 85 (82.5%) 18 (17.5%) Q 103 Total High Schools 161 (86.1 %) 26 (13.9%) 0 187 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.6%) 2(4.1%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) _o_ 28 Total Middle Schools 130 (81.3%) 28 (17.5%) 2 (1.2%) 160 Elementarv Schools Amboy Elementary 24 (92.3%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 26 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Lakewood Elementary 24 (100%) O 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) 0 28 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) _o_ 28 Total Elementary Schools 346 (81.8%) 71 (16.8%) 6 (1.4%) 423 TOTAL DISTRICT 637 (82.7%) 125 (16.2%) 8 (1. 1 %) 770 I 051936-1 ATTACHMENT \"F\" Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 0 76 North Pulaski High School 56 (83.6%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) 0 97 Total High Schools 333 (81.6%) 75 (18.4%) 0 408 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 0 55 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13 (27.1%) 0 48 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 0 38 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) 0 fil. Total Middle Schools 249 (78.5%) 68 (21.5%) 0 317 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 0 23 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 0 40 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 College Station Elementary 20 (74. l %) 7 (25.9%) 0 27 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 23 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (5.3%) 19 J acksonvi lie Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Landmark Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Lawson Elementary 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%) 0 20 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 - Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 1051950-1 - Robinson Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4(21.1%) 0 19 Total Elementary Schools 516 (80.1%) 123 (19.1%) 5 (.8%) 644 TOTAL DISTRICTS 1098 (80.2%) 266 (19.4%) 5 (.4%) 1369 I 051950-1 ATTACHMENT \"G\" North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent l (100%) 0 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Administrative Directors 4 (100%) 0 0 4 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 6 Coordinators 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 10 Specialists 2 (100%) 0 _Q _l Total Centi-al Office 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Building Level High School Principals East 1 (100%) 0 0 1 West 1 (100%) 0 0 l - Agenta Academy 0 1 (100%) 0 1 High School Assistant Principals East 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 4 West 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) Q -1 Total High Schools 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) 0 11 Middle School Principals Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Poplar Street 0 1 ( 100%) 0 1 Ridgeroad l (100%) 0 0 1 Rose City 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Middle School Assistant Principals Lakewood 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Ridgeroad 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Rose City 0 I (100%) _Q .1 Total Middle Schools 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 0 11 - I 051955-1 - Elementary School Principals Amboy 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Belwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Crestwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Glenview 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Lynch Drive 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadow Park 0 l (100%) 0 1 North Heights 0 l (100%) 0 1 Park Hill l (100%) 0 0 1 Pike View 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Seventh Street 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary School Assistant Principals Boone Park l (100%) 0 0 l Indian Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 Lynch Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 North Heights I (100%) 0 0 Seventh Street I (100%) 0 0 - Coordinator Redwood Pre School l (100%) 0 _Q _1 Total Elementary Schools 13 (68.4%) 6 (31.6%) 0 19 TOT AL ADMINISTRATION 45 (68.2%) 21 (31.8%) 0 66 I 051955-1 ATTACHMENT \"H\" Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-2006 Central Office White Black Other Total Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Directors 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 12 Coordinators 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%) 0 16 Facilitator 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Consultants 2 (100%) 0 0 2 School Psychologist 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) _o_ _l Total Central Office 24 (66.7% 12 (33.3%) 0 36 High School Principals Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Pulaski 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - High School Assistant Principals Jacksonville 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Mills 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 No11h Pulaski 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) _o_ 2 Total High Schools 10 (55.6%) 8 (44.4%) 0 18 Middle School Principals Fuller 0 1 (100%) 0 Jacksonville (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 1 (100%) 0 Maumelle 1 (100%) 0 0 Northwood 0 1 (100%) 0 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 Middle School Assistant Principals Fuller 0 2 (100%) 0 2 J acksonvi Ile (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 I (100%) 0 1 Maumelle 0 I (100%) 0 1051965-1 - Northwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 2 (100%) _o_ 2 Total Middle Schools 5 (38.5%) 8 (61.5%) 0 13 Elementary School Principals Adkins 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Arnold Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Baker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Cato 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Clinton 0 1 (100%) 0 1 College Station l (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Dupree 0 l (100%) 0 1 Harris 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Landmark 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lawson l (100%) 0 0 1 Oakbrooke 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest l (100%) 0 0 1 Pinewood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Robinson l (100%) 0 0 1 Scott l (100%) 0 o 1 Sherwood l (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills l (100%) 0 0 1 Taylor l (100%) 0 0 1 Tolleson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Baker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta l (100%) 0 0 1 Clinton l (50.0%) l (50.0%) 0 1 Crystal Hill 0 l (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oakbrooke I (100%) 0 0 l Pine Forest 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pinewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 l (100%) 0 1 Taylor 0 1 (100%) _o_ 1 Total Elementary Schools 17 (45.9%) 20 (54.1 %) 0 37 1051965-1 ATTACHMENT \"I\" Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools Central High School Hall High School J .A. Fair High School McClellan High School (Magnet) Parkview High School (Stipulated) Accelerated Learning (9-12) Alternative Learning Center (H.S.) White 1033 (42.7%) 150 (10.8%) 127 (10.9%) 50 (5.8%) 496 (43.9%) 18 (14.0%) 5 (2.5%) Black Other 1273 (52.6%) 116 (4.7%) 1083 (78.0%) 155 (11.2%) 1006 (86.1%) 36 (3.0%) 779 (90.2%) 35 (4.0%) 559 (49.5%) 74 (6.6%) 109 (84.5%) 2 (1.5%) 193 (96.5%) 2 (1.0%) Total 2422 1388 1169 864 1129 129 200 Total High School 1879 (25.7%) 5002 (68.5%) 420 (5.8%) 7301 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 27 (4.2%) Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 218 (26.9%) Forest Heights Middle School 121 (17.9%) Henderson Middle School 65 (10.3%) Mabel vale Middle School 77 (12.6%) Mann Middle School (Stipulated)  365 (42.9%) Pulaski Heights Middle School 307 (41.8%) Southwest Middle School 19 (4.1 %) Alternative Learning Center _(Mdl.) 5 (5.7%) Total Middle School 1204 (21.9%) Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 23 (6.9%) Baseline Elementary 17 (5.7%) Booker Arts Elementary (Stipulated) 253 (41.7%) Brady Elementary 40 (10.2%) Carver Elementary (Stipulated) 211 (39.6%) Chicot Elementary 34 (6.0%) Cloverdale (Closed 10-24-05) 7 (6.2%) Dodd Elementary 8 (3.7%) Fair Park Elementary 38 (29.2%) Forest Park Elementary 309 (75.9%) Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 10 (2.3%) Fulbright Elementary 445 (70.3%) Gayer Springs Elementary 15 (4.5%) Gibbs Elementary (Stipulated) 117 (39.4%) Jefferson Elementary 294 (66.5%) Mabelvale Elementary 50 (14.8%) McDermott Elementary 115 (25.1 %) Meadowcliff Elementary 42 (11.6%) 491 (77.2%) 118 (18.6%) 531 (65.5%) 62 (7.6%) 531 (78.6%) 24 (3.5%) 503 (79.8%) 62 (9.9%) 519 (84.7%) 17 (2.7%) 429 (50.5%) 56 (6.6%) 411 (56.0%) 16 (2.2%) 419 (91.1 %) 22 (4.8%) 80 (92.0%) 2 (2.3%) 3914 (71.2%) 379 (6.9%) 273 (81.7%) 38 (11.4%) 219 (74.0%) 60 (20.3%) 324 (53.4%) 30 (4.9%) 332 (84.3%) 22 (5.5%) 290 (54.4%) 32 (6.0%) 418 (74.l %) 112 (19.9%) 85 (75.2%) 21 (18.6%) 162 (74.7%) 47 (21.6%) 86 (66.2%) 6 (4.6%) 81 (19.9%) 17 (4.2%) 427 (97.0%) 3 (.7%) 152 (24.0%) 36 (5.7%) 301(90.4%) 17(5.1%) 158 (53.2%) 22 (7.4%) 142 (32.1 %) 6 (1.4%) 257 (76.0%) 31 (9.2%) 296 (64.6%) 47 (10.3%) 289 (79.6%) 32 (8.8%) 636 811 676 630 613 850 734 460 _.fil_ 5497 334 296 607 394 533 564 113 217 130 407 440 633 333 297 442 338 458 363 M.L. King Elementary (Interdistrict) 187 (30.2%) Otter Creek Elementary 154 (26.6%) Pulaski Heights Elementary 167 (50.0%) Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 4 (2.2%) Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 107 (22.4%) Romine Elementary (Interdistrict) 28 (7.7%) Stephens Elementary 11 (2.0%) Terry Elementary 185 (28.2%) Wakefield Elementary 20 (4.1 %) Washington (Interdistrict) 78 (12.1 %) Watson Elementary 7 (1.5%) Western Hills Elementary 48 (16.8%) Williams Elementary (Stipulated) 177 (38.5%) Wilson Elementary 15 (5.4%) Woodruff Elementary 17 (7 .1 % ) 409 (66.1 % ) 23 (3.7%) 374 (64.5%) 52 (8.9%) 152 (45.5%) 15 (4.5%) 178(96.7%) 2(1.1%) 358 (75.1 %) 12 (2.5%) 290 (79.5%) 47 (12.8%) 527 (96.3%) 9 (1.7%) 375 (57.2%) 96 (14.6%) 366 (74.5%) 105 (21.4%) 516 (80.1 %) 50 (7.8%) 419 (91.5%) 32 (7.0%) 220 (76.9%) 18 (6.3%) 233 (50.7%) 50 (10.8%) 242 (87.7%) 19 (6.9%) 219 (92.0%) 2 (.9%) 619 580 334 184 477 365 547 656 491 644 458 286 460 276 238 Total Elementary Total District 3233 (23.9%) 9170 (67.9%) 1111 (8.2%) 13514 6316 (24.0%) 18086 (68.7%) 1910 (7.3%) 26312 ATTACHMENT \"J\" Building Capacities for Each of the Three Districts - Pulaski County Special School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools Jacksonville High School 1360 1129 83% Mills High School 1130 972 86% North Pulaski High School 1050 897 85% Oak Grove High School 1130 627 55% Robinson High School 770 674 88% Sylvan Hills High School 1120 1018 91% Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 1360 758 56% Jacksonville Middle School 1970 892 45% Maumelle Middle School 1360 447 33% Northwood Middle School 1030 668 65% Robinson Middle School 650 414 64% Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 713 66% Elementary Schools - Adkins Elementary 526 242 46% Arnold Drive Elementary 453 295 65% Baker Elementary 428 374 87% Bates Elementary 863 529 61% Bayou Meto Elementary 697 430 62% Cato Elementary 800 349 44% Clinton Elementary 840 672 80% College Station Elementary 439 201 46% Crystal Hill Elementary 870 794 91% Dupree Elementary 498 298 60% Hanis Elementary 906 266 29% Jacksonville Elementary 850 575 68% Landmark Elementary 711 315 44% Lawson Elementary 372 302 81% Oak Grove Elementary 626 324 52% Oakbrooke Elementary 553 433 78% Pine Forest Elementary 554 512 92% Pinewood Elementary 677 470 69% Robinson Elementary 544 371 68% Scott Elementary 294 131 45% Sherwood Elementary 561 401 71% Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 425 70% Taylor Elementary 566 378 67% Tolleson Elementary 291 561 52% 1051981-1 - North Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools North Little Rock High (East) 1556 1517 97% North Little Rock High (West) 1700 1469 86% Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 779 719 92% Poplar Street Middle Schoo 938 618 66% Ridgeroad Middle School 791 554 70% Rose City Middle School 466 211 45% Elementary Schools Amboy Elementary 462 350 76% Belwood Elementary 216 137 63% Boone Park Elementary 602 384 64% Crestwood Elementary 448 384 86% Glenview Elementary 254 158 62% Indian Hills Elementary 586 534 91% Lakewood Elementary 425 385 91% Lynch Drive Elementary 549 338 62% Meadow Park Elementary 257 195 76% North Heights Elementary 559 389 70% Park Hill Elementary 367 332 90% Pike View Elementary 507 376 74% Redwood Pre-School 228 213 93% Seventh Street Elementary 516 317 61% 1051981-1 Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacitv 2005-2006 Used High Schools Central High School 2276 2422 106% Hall High School 1754 1389 79% J.A. Fair High School 1200 1169 97% McClellan High School 1440 864 60% Parkview High School 1200 1129 94% Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 885 636 72% Dunbar Middle School 888 811 91% Forest Heights Middle School 780 676 87% Henderson Middle School 960 630 66% Mann Middle School 900 850 94% Mabelvale Middle School 681 613 90% - Pulaski Heights Middle School 858 734 86% Southwest Middle School 912 460 5.0% Elementarv Schools Bale Elementary 488 334 68% Baseline Elementary 360 296 82% Booker Arts Elementary 645 607 94% Brady Elementary 528 394 75% Carver Elementary 556 533 96% Chicot Elementary 509 564 111% Cloverdale Elementary 489 113 23% Dodd Elementary 271 289 107% Fair Park Elementary 304 130 43% Forest Park Elementary 400 407 102% Franklin Elementary 532 440 83% Fulbright Elementary 565 633 112% Gayer Springs Elementary 358 333 93% Gibbs Elementary 321 297 93% Jefferson Elementary 471 442 94% Mabelvale Elementary 443 338 76% McDennott Elementary 453 458 101% Meadowcliff Elementary 358 363 101% M.L. King Elementary 715 619 87% - Otter Creek Elementary 537 580 108% 1051981-1 Pulaski Heights Elementary 350 334 95% Rightsell Elementary 296 184 62% Rockefeller Elementary 481 477 99% Romine Elementary 507 365 72% Stephens Elementary 646 547 85% Terry Elementary 575 656 114% Wakefiled Elementary 482 491 102% Washington Elementary 836 644 77% Watson Elementary 591 458 77% West em Hills Elementary 320 286 89% Williams Elementary 585 460 79% Wilson Elementary 340 276 81% Woodruff Elementary 314 238 76% 1051981-1 ATTACHMENT \"K\" Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments - 2005-2006 White Black Total High Schools Central High School 103 (66.0%) 53 (34.0%) 156 Hall High School 66 (62.9%) 39 (37.1 %) 105 J.A. Fair High School 57 (64.0%) 32 (36.0%) 89 McClellan High School (Magnet) 41 (51.3%) 39 (48.7%) 80 Parkview High School (Magnet) 59 (69.4%) 26 (30.6%) 85 Total High Schools 326 (63.3%) 189 (36.7%) 515 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 23 (37.7%) 38 (62.3%) 61 Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 35 (57.4%) 26 (42.6%) 61 Forest Heights Middle School 37 (57.8%) 27 (42.2%) 64 Henderson Middle School 32 (50.8%) 31 (49.2%) 63 Mann Middle School (Magnet) 33 (50.0%) 33 (50.0%) 66 Mabelvale Middle School 43 (74.1%) 15 (25.9%) 58 Pulaski Heights Middle School 46 (78.0%) 13 (22.0%) 59 Southwest Middle School 16 (30.8%) 36 (69.2%) 52 - Total Middle Schools 265 (54.8%) 219 (45.2%) 484 Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Baseline Elementary 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%) 26 Booker Arts Elementary (Magnet) 39 (70.9%) 16 (29.1%) 55 Brady Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Carver Elementary (Magnet) 29 (69.0%) 13 (31.0%) 42 Chicot Elementary 33 (75.0%) 11 (25.0%) 44 Cloverdale Eleme~t\"ry Dodd Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Fair Park Elementary 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 9 Forest Park Elementary 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 26 Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 14 (36.8%) 24 (63.2%) 38 Fulbright Elementary 31 (79.5%) 8 (20.5%) 39 Geyer Springs Elementary 13 (52.0%) 12 (48.0%) 25 Gibbs Elementary (Magnet) 21 (72.4%) 8 (27.6%) 29 Jefferson Elementary 23 (74.2%) 8 (25.8%) 31 King Elementary (Magnet) 24 (53.3%) 21 (46.7%) 45 Mabelvale Elementary 20 (69.0%) 9 (31.0%) 29 McDem1ott Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Meadowcliff Elementary 18 (66.7%) 9 (33.3%) 27 Mitchell Elementary (Incentive) 1051993-1 -- Otter Creek Elementary 27 (77.1%) 8 (22.9%) 35 Pulaski Heights Elementary 18 (81.8%) 4 (18.2%) 22 Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 6 (33.3%) 12 (67.7%) 18 Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 30 (83.3%) 6 (16.7%) 36 Romine Elementary (Inter-district) 12 (41.4%) 17 (58.6%) 29 Stephens Elementary 23 (52.3%) 21 (47.7%) 44 Terry Elementary 31 (86.1%) 5 (13.9%) 36 W akefiled Elementary 22 (62.9%) 13 (37.1%) 35 Washington Elementary (Magnet) 24 (45.3%) 29 (54.7%) 53 Watson Elementary 23 (65.7%) 12 (34.3%) 35 W estem Hills Elementary 16 (76.2%) 5 (23.8%) 21 Williams Elementary (Magnet) 29 (80.6%) 7 (19.4%) 36 Wilson Elementary 16 (59.3%) 11 (40.7%) 27 Woodruff Elementary 11 (50.0%) 11 (50.0%) 22 Total Elementary Schools 662 (64.4%) 366 (35.6%) 1028 TOTALS 1253 (61.8%) 774 (38.2%) 2027 1051993-1 ATTACHMENT \"L\" Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Deputy Superintendent 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Associate Superintendent 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Government Legislative Affairs 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9%) 0 18 Coordinators 8(42.1%) 11 (57.9%) 0 19 Specialists 1 (7.7%) 12 (92.3%) _Q u Total Central Office 23 (40.4%) 34 (59.6%) 0 57 Building Level High School Principals Central 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Hall 1 (100%) 0 0 1 McClellan 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Parkview 1 (100%) 0 0 1 High School Assistant Principals Central 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 0 6 Fair 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Hall 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 4 McClellan 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Parkview 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) _Q 1 Total High Schools 14 (56.0%) 11 (44.0%) 0 25 Middle School Principals Cloverdale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dunbar 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Forest Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Henderson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale l (100%) 0 0 1 Mann l (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Southwest 0 l (100%) 0 1 1051998-1 - Middle School Assistant Principals Cloverdale 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Dunbar 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Forest Heights 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Henderson 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mabel vale 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mann 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Pulaski Heights 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Southwest 0 2 (100%) _Q 2 Total Middle Schools 12 (44.4%) 15 (55.6%) 0 27 Elementary School Principals Bale 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Baseline 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Booker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Brady 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Carver I (100%) 0 0 1 Chicot I (100%) 0 0 1 Cloverdale* 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dodd 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair Park Elementary Forest Park 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Franklin 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Geyer Springs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Gibbs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jefferson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 McDermott 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadowcliff 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Mitchell Elementary Otter Creek 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rightsell 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Romine 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Stephens 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Terry 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wakefield I (100%) 0 0 1 Washington 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Watson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - Western Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 1 105 I 998-1 - Williams 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wilson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Woodruff 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Booker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Carver 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Chicot 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Otter Creek 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Stevens 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Terry 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Wakefield 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Washington 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Williams 0 1 (100%) _Q l Total Elementary Schools 20 (45.5%) 24 (54.5%) 0 44 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 69(45.1%) 84 (54.9%) 0 153 1051998-1 ATTACHMENT \"M\" \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" by Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (January 31, 2002) v\\kst1iw. L,,' 159WELR407 Page I 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) C West's Education Law Reporter January 31, 2002 Commentary *407 SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASES: THE \"GOOD FAITH\" REQUIREMENT LI::lli} Charles L. Patin, Jr., J.D. and William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. [FNI] Copyright 2002 by West Group - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works Stephen Furr, a member of the Rapides Parish School Board, aptly commented following a discussion about the \"good faith\" requirement in school desegregation cases that: The \"good faith\" requirement may be the single most difficult of all the requirements of a unitary system. It demands a change in attitude which must be evidenced in the words and actions of the members of the Board and all those connected with the school system. (emphasis supplied.) In the wake of the United States Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Freeman v. Pitts. [FN2] the underlying test as to whether a school district has operated in \"good faith\" and is entitled to the entry of a judgment terminating judicial supervision in a school desegregation case is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" [FN3] (emphasis supplied.) Freeman's test, its origin and development, and a discussion of the kinds of actions school districts should undertake in its aftermath fonn the subject matter of this article. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT IN FREEMAN v. PITTS The origin of the \"good faith\" requirement can be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown II. [FN4] There the Court commanded *408 \"good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date [,]\" [FNS] with its landmark decision in Brown I. (FN6] Brown I declared state imposed segregation in the field of public elementary and secondary education unconstitutional as in violation of the guarantees in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brown II, decided during the following term of the Court, placed primary responsibility upon local school districts to undertake necessary action to convert to unitary systems \"with all deliberate speed\" [fn7] AND CHARGED federal district courts with the responsibility of assessing \"whether the action of local school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles(]\" elucidated in Brown I. (FN8] It also directed governments at all levels to undertake af{irmative steps to dismantle laws requiring or permitting segregation in the area of public education. The Court observed that \"[a]ll provisions of federal, state and local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to [the principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional].\" [FN9) Implicit in Brown II was an expectation that local school districts would come forward with plans to establish unitary systems and that states would adopt legislation to repeal statutes requiring separate educational opportunities and facilities for the races. From its inception, therefore, \"good faith\" envisioned that voluntary action would be taken by local school district  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ffk (_/' 159 WELR407 Page2 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) and state officials to comply with the rule of law in Brown I and the mandate in Brown II. In most, if not all, instances the initial response of school districts \"to the mandate in Brown II was an all too familiar one. Interpreting 'all deliberate speed' as giving latitude to delay steps to desegregate,\" (FNl OJ school districts undertook virtually no action to convert to unitary systems in the decade following Brown II. But the time for \"all deliberate speed\" was drawing to an end. In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, [lliill decided just over a decade after Brown II, the Court stated \"the time fo~ mere 'deliberate speed' has run out[.]\" (FN12) \"The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises to realistically work now. (FNl3) (emphasis by the Court.) The Green Court observed It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any *409 alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the stateimposed dual system \"at the earliest practicable date,\" then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith[. (FN14) (emphasis supplied.) Green went on to identify areas or facets of the operations of school districts in which prior state sanctioned discrimination must be eliminated. These areas or facets in which vestiges of prior dual education systems for the races lingered were said to be comprised of student assignm~nts, administrative, faculty and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, and facilities. Discrimination in these areas was to be eliminated \"root and branch.\" (FNl5) Subsequent cases expanded these areas so as to include resource allocations, as addressed in Swann y. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (FN 16) and the right to a \"quality education,\" (FN 17) as discussed in Freeman. These areas may be said in a practical way to constitute what we understand today as the \"Green Factors.\" \"The Green factors are a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance with Brown[.]\" (FNl 8) The expanding role of federal district courts, foreshadowed in Green, was to come to fruition in Swann. The Swann Court announced where \"school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under [Brown II and Green], judicial authority may be invoked.\" (FN l 91 This language formally ushered in the era of federally imposed school desegregation orders. The power of federal district courts to fashion school desegregation orders through their equity jurisdiction came with the concomitant obligation that school districts implement them in good faith. The good faith requirement of Brown II was thus expanded. \"Good faith\" could be demonstrated not only through self-initiated voluntary action but also through the implementation of the orders of courts sufficient to demonstrate a good faith commitment to the principles of equality in the Fourteenth Amendment. The next major developmental step was to come decades later in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowcll. (FN20] There the Court observed that the issue of whether a school district should be declared unitary, and judicial supervision terminated, must turn on whether a school district has implemented \"in good faith ... the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable.\" [FN2 l] (emphasis supplied.) The requirement that all vestiges of past discrimination be eliminated to the extent practicable formally recognized what to that point in time had been more or less implicit in the cases--that is *410 say a school district's good faith must be assessed in light of its policies and action as they relate to compliance with the remedial measures in orders of the court, any remaining Green Factors which were not addressed in those orders, and any other facets of the operation of a school district  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. \"{ A r,_,a.f\nVVt.\nl..ill.w. l,,/ 159 WELR4O7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) in which other vestiges of discrimination might still exist. (FN22] Page 3 Dowell clarified whatever ambiguity earlier cases might have interjected into the analysis federal district courts were to employ in approaching a school district's motion for unitary status. Mere compliance with the verbage of a federal school desegregation order limiting remedial actions to less than all of the Green Factors would not suffice. The requisite showing of good faith also must involve a judicial finding that a school district has eliminated past discrimination in all facets of its operations to the extent practicable. Dowell, therefore, demonstrated a continuing commitment by the Court to the principles it had earlier announced in Brown I, and the mandate and requirements in Brown II, Green and Swann. Even though language in many of the older federal school desegregation orders was limited to specific remedial actions, usually in the areas of student and faculty and staff assignments, Dowell reiterated a unitary school system is one in which all vestiges of prior discrimination have been eliminated to the extent _practicable. On the heels of Dowell came Freeman. It underscored what had been said a year earlier in Dowell: \"a school district that was once dual must be examined in all of its facets, ... when the question is whether the district court's remedial control ought to be modified, lessened, or withdrawn.\" [FN231 But Freeman's pronouncements on good faith went much further than prior case law and were to fim1ly entrench good faith as an essential requirement of a unitary system. Freeman recognized good faith compliance as \"one of the prerequisites to relinquishment of [judicial) control[.)\" [FN24J A good faith commitment to the entirety of a school district's desegregation plan was viewed as necessary \"in order to insure that the principal wrong of the de jure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, [would be) no longer present.\" [FN25] This finding in tum requires a showing by a school district sufficie~t to \"demonstrate[), to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" [FN26] Only a voluntary change of attitude, evidenced in the words and actions of the members of a school board and all those connected with a school system, is sufficient to make this showing. *411 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Court in Freeman observed that \"(a) history of good-faith compliance\" is necessary in order that a federal district court may \"accept [a) school board's representation that it has accepted the principle ofracial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" [FN27] Moreover, [c)ourts have recognized that the mere adoption of a racially neutral remedial plan is not tantamount to desegregation. Thus, where a court has reason to believe that a discriminatory animus still taints local decisionmaking, it may be appropriate for the court to retain jurisdiction for some period after neutral procedures have been implemented. [FN28] (citations omitted\nemphasis supplied.) Accordingly, a good faith showing cannot be based upon a temporary ritualistic change in behavior on the eve of filing a motion for unitary status. A pattern of dedication to the whole of the court's orders and to the constitutional principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment must be shown for a \"reasonable period of time.\" [FN29] The case law appears to suggest that a \"reasonable period of time\" consists of at least three years from the commencement of the implementation of a desegregation plan. [FN301 Freeman, therefore, may be viewed as a culminating step in the Court's development of the \"good faith\" requirement\na development which has spanned nearly four decades. Its essential aspects, traceable to Brown !I's call for voluntary action and judicial oversight, remain firmly intact. What Freeman adds is a requirement that a specific judicial finding be made that a school district has taken sufficient and consistent action for a reasonable period of time to convey and demonstrate a) a  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. -1 lAv~T1,....,4J~.a' .W. L/ 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) Page 4 change of attitude to those on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought, and b) an acceptance of Fourteenth Amendment principles sufficient to suggest to the a:urr that if judicial supervision is relinquished the school district will not likely return to its former discriminatory ways. It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of federal courts in school desegregation cases is derived through their equity jurisdiction. \"Clean *412 hands,\" a cornerstone tenet of equity, must be shown by a school district seeking relief from a school desegregation order. A school district's clean hands can only be shown through compliance with the orders of the court and an acceptance of the principles embodied within the Fourteenth Amendment sufficient to demonstrate \"to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" Only with a change in attitude evidencing a comm1tment to the principle of equality of educational opportunities for all children is such a demonstration possible. ACTION WHICH DEMONSTRATES GOOD FAITH \"A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations [.)\" [FN31 J Accordingly, school boards should have all existing policies in the areas of student assignments, administrative, faculty W1ZJ and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, facilities, resource allocations to determine whether they comport with the requirements of Green, Swann, Singleton (FN33] and Freeman. Where policies do not exist, they should be voluntarily adopted and submitted to the parties for ri,view and comment and to the court for approval. In addition to policies designed to address Green Factors per se, there will likely be a need to consider adoption of policies addressing student discipline, teacher recruitment, harassment of students becau~e of race or color, measures to increase minority participation in gifted and .alented programs and other advanced courses, parental and community involvement practices and procedures, and perh:!ps other areas as well. The need for these more particularized policies will depend upon the facts in a given case. Other action may be necessary as well. In this regard, Freeman and its progeny offer helpful examples. Freeman involved a motion for unitary status by the DeKalb County School District (hereinafter referred to as the \"DCSD\") which had operated under federal supervision since 1969. Partial unitary status was granted in the area of student assignments, and three other areas as well. (FN34] Because of the obvious significance of student assignments, the Court's reasoning in this area will be examined more closely. It offers exc~!!ent examples of actions school districts can take to demonstrate good faith. At the time of the filing of the motion for unitary status, approximately 73,000 students were enrolled in the DCSD in grades kindergarten through twelve. Over the ensuing years preceding the filing of the unitary status motion in 1986, the DCSD had experienced significant changes in the racial *413 composition of its student population. The school district's overall resident population had grown from about 70,000 residents to approximately 450,000 persons in about a thirty year span. The racial composition of the student population had grown from a little under six percent black in 1969 to 47 percent black in 1986. Remarkable demographic changes occurred as well. The northern portion of the school district had become predominately white, while the southern portion had become predominately black. Mindful of the \"continuing\" nature of the duty to desegregate, (FN35] the DCSD had made \"about 170\" boundary line changes to its student attendance zones since the filing of the school desegregation lawsuit. [FN36l Only three of the 170 student attendance zone changes were fcund to have had even a partial segregative effect. (FN3 7] The school district had initiated a mnj0rity-to-minority (\"M-to-M) student transfer policy in 1972 to promote voluntary stu-  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Vks'fuiw. t,.....,- 159 WELR407 Page 5 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) dent transfers to increase levels of desegregation and minimize racial isolation. M-to-M transfers permit a student whose race is in the majority in his/her stude_nt attendance zone school to transfer to a school in another student attendance zone in which his/her race will be in the minority. In general, M-to-M transfers permit black students attending predominately black schools to transfer to predominately white schools until the racial composition of the receiving school reaches 50 percent white and 50 percent black or some other percentage depending upon school board policy or an order of the court. M-to-M transfers also are available to white students enrolled in predominately white schools who desire to transfer to_a predominately black school. Magnet programs were instituted in the early J 980's. A performing arts, two science, and foreign language magnet programs were offered. [FN38) These programs were located in schools in the middle of the school district to better draw both white and black students residing in the northern and southern portions of the school district. In addition, racially integrated \"experience programs\" were offered in areas such a writing for fifth and seventh graders, a driving range, summer school programs, and a dialectical speech program. Measures were employed by the DCSD to control the racial mix in each of these programs to insure that they would be operated on a desegregated basis. (FN39) Finally, it is significant to note that the Court observed that \"only infrequent and limited judicial intervention into the affairs of [the DCSD) (]\" had been required during the period of judicial supervision. (FN40) This served as further evidence of a pattern of substantial compliance over the years with the court's orders. (FN41) *414 These combined actions, and the lack of a need for constant judicial intervention, were deemed sufficient by the Court to show that the DCSD had \"achieved the maximum practical desegregation from 1969 to I 986.\" [FN42) Lower federal court decisions in the wake of Freeman provide additional examples.- A few of them are discussed here. ~ ning v. School Board of Hillsborough County Florida (FN43) involved an appeal by a school district to a district court judgment denying a motion for unitary status. The school district had operated under a court imposed school desegregation order from the early l 970's until 1991 when a consent decree had been entered into by the parties and approved by the court. The consent decree modified the court's earlier order. It was to be implemented over a seven year period. One of the major aspects of the consent decree was the elimination of sixth grade center schools. These were replaced by middle schools under the terms of the decree. In 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the consent decree. The motion was referred by the court to a magistrate who recommended denying the motion. In response to the recommendation, the court deferred ruling on the motion and remanded the matter to the magistrate to consider of whether the school district had achieved unitary status and was entitled to termination of judicial supervision. The motion was tried before the magistrate in 1996. In 1997, the magistrate recommended to the court that it find the school district unitary and terminate judicial supervision. Testimony was offered and considered by the magistrate on the issue of good faith in accordance with Freeman. Based upon the testimony, the magistrate judge concluded the school district had complied in good faith with the court's decree. Testimony was offered by the superintendent, the school board's chairman and several of its members. The testimony of the school district witnesses was found to show a commitment to Fourteenth Amendment principles. The superintendent testified \"he felt 'a moral and legal obligation on the school system to continue a desegregated school system.'\" (FN44) The chairman of the school board testified the school board was \"going to guarantee that students will receive [an] equal education.\" (FN45) School board members \"expressed no misgivings about ... the intent and ability of the School Board to continue a desegregated school system while receiving input from all members of the community.\" (FN46)  2006 Tlt0111son/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ (_/\" 159 WELR 407 Page 6 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) In addition, a twenty-five year history of compliance with the court's orders was observed by the magistrate. Not once had the school district been found in violation of any court order. Furthermore, the magistrate found the school district had regularly conferred with the plaintiffs \"to ensure that the school system was moving forwards, not backwards, toward compliance with the [c]ourt's orders.\" [FN47l Based upon this evidence, the magistrate concluded the action of the school district \"demonstrates that [the school board has] accepted the principle of racial equality and will not revert back to a dual school system.\" (FN48J *415 However, the district court rejected the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the court of appeals' discussion of the good faith requirement focused on factors such as a) the school district's history of never violating a court order\nb) the school district had never been sanctioned\nand c) the school district had consulted extensively with the black community, including the plaintiffs, prior to implementing new student assignments under the I 99 I consent decree. (FN49] In addition, the court noted magnet programs had been adopted specifically to reduce racial isolation and to promote desegregation, that a multicultural curriculum for students in all grades had been proposed and that special in-servicing for teachers was provided to enable them to deal with diverse student populations. [FN50J The court went on to note \"a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations.' \" (FNS I J The district court's ruling was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings before the district court judge. The school district's history of compliance, the use of magnet programming, and its regular discussions with the \"AfricanAmerican\" community were sufficient to demonstrate to those on whose behalf the case had b~en filed that the school d_istrict had made a commitment \"to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" In Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County School District, (FNS2l the court of appeals observed that A good faith commitment to a desegregation plan also demonstrates to parents, stvdents, and the public that students will no longer suffer injury or stigma. At the same time, it \"enables the district court to accept the school board's representation that [the school board] has accepted the principal of racial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" To determine if a school board has shown a good faith commitment to a desegregation plan, a district court should, among other things, consider whether the school board's policies \"fom1 a consistent pattern of lawful conducted directed to eliminating earlier violations.\" (citations o:nitted.) The court went on to observed that the school board had a history of a) having never been enjoined or sanctioned\nb) having never failed lo comply with a court order\nc) taking actions to further desegregation above and beyond what was required in the court's plan\nd) taking unsurpassed actions to maintain the highest levels of desegregation within its schools of any school *416 system in the nation\ne) successfully implementing magnet programs which had desegregated schools\nf) consulting with both white and black citizens prior to adoption of a neighborhood student assignment plan\nand g) implementing a majority- to-minority student transfer plan to offset any negative racial impact of the neighborhood student assignment plan. (f-N53J This conduct was found sufficient to support a finding of good faith. Reed v. Rhodes (FNS41 involved a motion to modify a consent decree and terminate judicial supervision over student assignments in the Cleveland Public School System. After citing Freeman and noting the necessity that a school district must have demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's [seminal remedial order] and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance(, [FNSSJ  2006 Th9mson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~'kiw. L--'' 159 WELR 407 Page 7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) the court observed the school district had not only complied with the student assignment plan to the extent practicable but, also, that it had implemented far more demanding compliance requirements ... to override the demographics of the City of Cleveland. In addition to extensive student attendance, zone boundary changes and clustering, provision for minority-to-minority transfers, magnet schools, and community schools, the District also implemented one of the nation's most extensive and arduous programs of mandatory student reassignments and transportation. The District reassigned students annually during this period to ensure that schools that had fallen out of compliance due to population mobility within [the] District were returned to compliance within the \"I 5io requirement. A comparison of the Cleveland School District's compliance with the student assignment component of the Remedial Order as incorporated into the Consent Decree with the history of compliance approved by the Supreme Court in Freeman compels the conclusion that the Cleveland District achieved \"full and satisfactory\" compliance with court-imposed requirements during the relevant periods. [FN5G) CONCLUSION What has remained consistent throughout the development of the good faith requirement is the need for voluntary action. A history of compliance with the orders of the court, punctuated by minimal judicial intervention into the affairs of a school district\nthe adoption and implementation of school board policies demonstrating a consistent pattern of lawful conduct\nthe use of M-to-M transfers and magnet programming to reduce racial isolation\nregular communications between the parties and members of the African American community, all require voluntary action and serve to evidence good faith by demonstrating *417 to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. In short, the long journey to unitary status cannot be completed where a school district's compliance is constantly coerced by judicial edict or the intercession of others acting on behalf of the court to fashion policies compliant with the law. A history of foot-dragging and contentiousness, with the concomittant need for frequent judicial i'ntervention, cannot demonstrate acceptance of the principle of equality embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment or demonstrate to the court that once judicial supervision is terminated that it will be unlikely that a school district would return to its fonner ways. (FNaJ The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Cite as 159 Ed.Law Rep. [407] (Jan. 31, 2002). [FN I]. Charles L. Patin, Jr. is a partner with the Baton Rouge law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan and Jarman, L.L.P. Mr. Patin successfully negotiated the consent judgment in \"Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board,\" and serves as lead desegregation attorney for the Rapides Parish School Board. Dr. \\Villiam M. Gordon is a school desegregation expert and consultant with over 30 years of experience. He has provided expert and consulting services for a number of school districts and state departments of education, as well as plaintiff groups and the United States Department of Justice. He has been certified as an expert in school desegregation by a number of federal district courts and has worked with school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. He now resides on Two-Goat Road in Saluda, North Carolina. [FN2]. 503 U.S. 467 112 S.Ct. 1430 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (72 Ed.Law Rep. (717)] (1992). [r-N3]. lei. \u0026lt;114 91 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN4]. Brown v. Bomcl of Education ofTopeb /Brown [I) 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955).  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. \"I'. AT _ _,,rfJ V~taw. 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN5]. Id at 300. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN6]. Brown v. Board ofEducation of Topeka. (Brown I} 347 U.S. 483 74 S.Ct. 686. 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). [FN7]. 349 U.S. at 299 and 301. 75 S.ct. at-------- ancl --------. [FN8]. Id. at 299. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN9]. Id. at 298, 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FNI0). Freeman 503 U.S. at 472. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [fiill.J. 391 U.S. 430. 88 S.Ct. 1689. 20 LEd. 2d 716 (1968). Page 8 [FN12]. Id. at 438. 88 S.Ct. at--------, citing Griffin v. Countv School Board, 377 U.S. 218 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226 --------. 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (I 964). [FNI 3]. Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN14]. Id. [FNI 5]. Id. at 438. [FNl6]. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, -------- 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). [FN17]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 482. [FN 18]. Id. 503 U.S. at 486. [FN19]. Swann, 402 U.S. I, 15, 91 S.ct. 1267. ----------. [FN20]. 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 112 L.Ed.2d 715 [64 eD.lAW rEP. [628]] (1991). [.E]fljJ. 498 U.S. at 249-50 111 S.Ct. at--------. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of State of Delaware 90 F.3d 752, 760 [I 11 Ed.Law Rep. [ 132]] (3rd Cir.1996) (observing \"the phrase 'to the extent practicable' implies a reasonable limit on the duration of ... federal supervision\"). [FN22]. See Manning v. School Board of Hillsborough Countv, Florida, 244 F.3d 927 at p. 11 [152 Ed.Law Rep. [51]] (11th Cir.(Fla.)} (citing Freeman and observing \"For a district court to determine whether the vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable, it must examine the six Green factors .... Using its discretion, a court may also consider other facets(] (emphasis supplied\")). In Freeman the use of this discretion was utilized to cite discrimination in the assignment of experienced and advanced degree teachers as a lingering vestige of the former dual system. [FN23]. 503 U.S. at 486 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN24]. Id. at 490 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN25]. Id. at 485, 112 S.Ct. at--------.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.  v-ks1'8w. L/' 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN26]. Id. at 491, 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN27]. Id. at 498, 112 S.Ct. at--------. Page 9 [FN28]. Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313. 321 (42 Ed.Law Rep. [514]] (1st Cir.1987), cited with favor in Freeman 503 U.S. at 498-99 112 S.Ct. at--------. (FN29]. Dowell 498 U.S. at 248-49 111 S.Ct. at-------- (observing a desegregation decree may be dissolved after compliance for a \"reasonable period of time\n\" the Court further observed that the \"passage of time enables the district court to observe the good faith of the school board in complying with the decree\"). [FN30]. See Lee v. Etowah County Board of Education, 963 F.2d 1416, 1422 [75 Ed.Law Rep. [195l) (11th Cir.1992) (observing \"the district court must retain jurisdiction for a period of time after the school system has implemented a desegregation plan. to guard against the possibility of recurring constitutional violations, and to ensure the achievement of the ultimate goal-- a unitary public school system in which the state does not discriminate between children on the basis of race. After a period of time sufficient to achieve these objectives has elapsed--this court has required a period of not less than three years- a district court may terminate a desegregation case by holding a hearing to determine if the school system has achieved unitary status\" [emphasis supplied])\nsee also United States v. Texas Education A0 ency 647 F.2d 504 508-09 (5th Cir.1981) cert. denied. 454 U.S. 1143 71 L.Ed.2d 295. 102 S.Ct. 1002 (1982) (observing district courts must retain jurisdiction in school desegregation cases \"for a period of not less than three years\" to insure proper implementation of a desegregation plan). [FN3 l ]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 491 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN32). In the area of faculty assignments, care should be taken to assure the non-discriminatory and proportional assignments of certified, advanced degreed and specialist certificated, and experienced teachers throughout a school system. [FN33). Si1wleton v. Jackson Mimicipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1969). [FN34). 503 U.S. at 471 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN35). See Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN36). Freeman 503 U.S. at 479. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN37). Id. [FN38). Id. [FN39). Id. at 479-80. [FN40J. Id. at 473. [FN4 l l. Frequent contentious litigation, whether initiated by plaintiffs contending a school district is not fulfilling its obligations under the court's orders or whether initiated by a school district seeking to avoid, or narrow the scope of, its obligations. is not conducive to a finding of a history of good faith compliance. [FN42). Id. at 4S0.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 1Ai-4G' V~L-aW. (.../ 159 WELR 407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN43). 244 F.3d 927 (152 Ed.Luw Rep. (51]] {I Ith Cir.{Fla.)l. [FN44). Id. at 9. ~.Id. [FN46). Id. [FN47]. Id. [FN48). Id. Page 10 [FN49). An example of how such communication may be facilitated in the context of a consent judgment is language found in the recent Consent Judgment approved by the court in Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, Civil Action No. I 0946, USDC W. D. La. It requires formation of a \"working group\" composed of school district personnel and citizens of the parish selected by counsel for plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor. [FN50). Manning, 244 F.3cl 927 at 6. [FN5l). Jd. at 14. (FN52). 111 F.3d 839 843 [117 Ed.Law Rep. [4871) {11th Cir.1997). [FN53). 111 F.3ct at 843-44. (FN54]. 934 F.Supp. I 533 [112 Ed.Law Rep. (7791) !N.D.Ohio 1996). affirmed, 179 F.3cl 453 (I 35 Ed.Law Rep. [929]] {6th Cir.1999). (FN55). Id. at 1548. [FN56). Id. at 1550-51. END OF DOCUMENT  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ATTACHMENT \"N\" \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts\" by William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (July 1, 1993) '\\J '\\vht\u0026lt;!.Sa(f.!w . 82 WELR283 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) West's Education Law Reporter July, 1993 Commentary Page I *283 ACHIEVING UNITARY STATUS UNDER THE COMBINED STANDARDS OF DOWELL AND PITTS [FNa] William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. and David E. Bartz, Ph.D. [FNaa] Copyright 1993 by West Publishing Company - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works School desegregation litigation since the mid-1980's has focused on efforts by school systems to be rel_eased from court supervision and being declared unitary. Unitary statu~ in school desegregation occurs when the federal district court desolves all injunctions and releases the school district from further court supervision. In light of the recent Supreme Court's decisions in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (FNl] and Freeman v. Pitts, (FN2) unitary status has once again been addressed and it is important to understand the context of these two cases. Behind Dowell and Pitts is a mountain of school desegregation litigation that in many instances spans twenty-five years or more. From cases where the original named plaintiffs are no longer involved, to instances where the children of the children involved in the original litigation have graduated from the public schools, an element of staleness accompanies the court-ordered remedies. District court judges who have presided over the same litigation for several decade_s or judges who have inherited twenty-five year old cases are tired of the wrangljng and want to see the controversies ended. Within this climate, litigants in school desegregation should not have been surprised that the Supreme Court finally became reattached and that the standards under the law were changed. Elimination of segregation \"root and branch,\" the standard for over twenty-five years, has for all practical purposes given way to a lesser standard, allowing the courts to overlook or let school systems excuse segregative situations that in the past would not have been acceptable. Therefore, before reviewing this current direction of the Supreme Court, it is worthwhile to review several lower court decisions of the late 1980s that appear to have been the precursors to the current direction of school desegregation and unitary status. In 1989 four significant cases focused on the defendant's motions to have all injunctions in effect dissolved, have all court supervision terminated and have the school systems declared unitary. Two of the cases involved *284 petitions from the two most important school desegregation cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, Brown v. Topeka, [.fl:UJ and Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. (FN4] The action brought in Topeka was to determine whether the Topeka school system had achieved unitary status. The United States District Court heard arguments and determined that the school system was unitary and released the defendants. [1:}!i1 An appeal was taken. The Tenth Circuit, affirming in part and reversing in part. (FNG] remanded to the district court providing: \"The board has an affirmative responsibility to see that pupil and faculty assignment policies and school construction and abandonment practices arc not used and do not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the dual school system.\" (FN7) The Tenth Circuit further clarified what it wanted in a unitary school system, stating \"an essential requirement of unitariness, however, is whether school authorities have made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation.\" [FNS) Thus, in the Tenth Circuit, what was practicable became a consideration in achieving unitary status.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~w. 82 WELR283 Page 2 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) In Denver, Colorado the district court failed to find the system unitary but did modify its order, eliminating reporting requirements and allowing the district to make changes in the desegregation plan without prior court approval. LEb!2OJn appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The court determined that the district court's finding that the system had not achieved unitary status was not clearly erroneous. (FN I OJ The Tenth Circuit then pointed out that, \"although the Supreme Court has not defined precisely what facts or factors make a district unitary, a starting point is to evaluate the factors that make a ~em segregated. In the context of a unitariness decision, these factors include elimination of invidious discrimination in transportation of students, integration of faculty and staff, equality of financial support given to extracurricular activities at different schools and integration of those activities, nondiscriminatory construction and location of new schools, and assignment of students so that no school is considered a white or black school.. .. This court has defined 'unitary' as the elimination of invidious discrimination and the performance of every reasonable effort to eliminate the various effects of past discrimination.\" (FNI IJ With this holding by the Tenth Circuit the six standards originally established *285 in Green. (FN I 2J as indices of a segregated system, became the yardstick in the circuit for achieving unitary status. After the district court found the Fort Worth, Texas, school system unitary, (FN13J \"in every respect, except the existence of a homogeneous student population,\" (FNJ 4J an appeal was taken. In its decision the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a system could become unitary incrementally. The court provided, \"we agree with the First Circuit's conclusion in Morgan v. Nucci 831 F.2d 313 42 Ed.Law Rep. 514 (1987), that a school system can achieve unitary status incrementally and that when it does so, the court will abdicate its supervisory role as to the aspect of the desegregation plan proclaimed unitary.\" (FNI SJ The court also provided a restatement of the Fifth Circuit's rule that, \"A district court in this circuit does not dismiss a school desegregation case until at least three years after it has declared the system unitary.\" (FN 16J _ The district court for the Western District of Texas declared the Waco, Texas, school district unitary, (FNI7] even though when applying the six Green factors it found a lack of complete compliance in each category. The school system had an ineffective majority to minority transfer program\nhad used only one-third of its bond money on facilities located in minority sections of the system\nhad underrepresentation of minorities in honors, gifted, and talented programs\nhad an achievement gap between minority and nonminority students\nhad a higher dropout rate, expulsion rate and suspension rate for minorities\nhad not met minority hiring goals\nand had practices that discriminated against minorities who wanted to become cheerleaders. Even with a demonstrated lack of compliance, the system was released from the court's jurisdiction, having completed its three-year probationary period ?.fter the court's original finding of unitary status in 1986. The court in Arvizu had simply adhered to the Fifth Circuit guidelines of utilizing the six factors of Green as its standards and providing a three-year probationary period following the initial determination of unitariness. That there was a significant lack of compliance did not dissuade the court from closing the case and ceasing its involvement. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida dissolved the permanent injunction requiring the Duval County School Board to desegregate the school system. With the dissolution of the injunctions, the court declared the system unitary. (FN I 8J An appeal was taken to the Eleventh Circuit, where the lower court was reversed and the decision vacated and remanded. (FN I 9) The court held that the school system had failed to meet the six standards of *286 Green and had failed to eliminate the vestiges of past state-imposed segregation. The court provided: \"A declaration of unitary status is also inappropriate when the evidence shows that the school authorities have not consistently acted in good faith to implement the objectives of the plan\". (FN20] Quoting Green, the court continued, \"Availability to the board of other more desegregative courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith placing a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective 111ethod\". (FN2 l) With this decision by the Eleventh Circuit, the Green factor of good faith behavior on the part of the school authorities, subsequently reaffirmed in Dowell, re111ained a primary component in a system's quest for unitary status.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.  \"\u0026lt;AT. _.Y',) v~aw. 82 WELR283 Page 3 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) Therefore, before the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Dowell and Pitts, the courts in the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had begun defining more precisely the issues of unitariness. All three circuits had established the six factors of Green as their threshold standards. The Tenth Circuit in Brown and Keyes established that school systems that had taken into account the practicalities of the situation and had made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation could be declared unitary. The Fifth Circuit in Flax, concurring with decisions in the First and Tenth, held that a school system could become unitary incrementally. It also restated the Fifth Circuit ruling that a system must remain under the court's supervision for three years following the declaration of unitariness. In Arvizu, a case not reviewed by Fifth Circuit, the district court granted the motion for unitary status even though the Waco, Texas, school system fell far short of meeting the six factors of Green. The actions of the Arvizu court indicate a greater tolerance by the courts, at least in the Fifth Circuit, for systems that approached compliance rather than holding to the standards of Green, which provide for complete compliance. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit in Duval County reaffirmed that good faith attempts to comply were necessary and that systems that hedged and did not comply in good faith could not expect to be found unitary. During the period these lower courts were addressing the issues of unitariness, two cases, Dowell in the Tenth Circuii [FN22] and Pitts in the Eleventh Circuit, (FN23] progressed toward the Supreme Court. The Dowell case involved the reopening of desegregation litigation that had been dismissed and the school district declared unitary. In Pitts the issue involved the granting of partial unitary status and ceasing court supervision, in areas where the school system was in compliance with one or more of the several factors of Green. In 1985, following a newly imposed student assignment plan, the plaintiffs in Oklahoma City motioned the district court to reopen the case. The motion was made subsequent to the system being declared unitary and having all prior injunctions ordered dissolved. The plaintiffs, in their motion to reopen, contended the Student Reassignment Plan (SRP), implemented by *287 the board in 1984, was segregative. The SRP relied on neighborhood assignment of students in grades K-4, and it allowed eleven of the district's sixty-four elementary schools to be 90% black and twenty-two schools to be 90% white. The district court denied the motion and refused to reopen the litigation, holding that its finding of unitariness in 1977 was res judicata as to those who were then parties to the action. [FN24) The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, (FN25] holding that though the system was unitary, nothing in the order indicated that the original injunctions were terminated. Unitary merely ended the district court's active supervision, not the system's responsibilities. On remand the district court once again refused to reopen the litigation, holding the system had operated under its orders in good faith for more than a decade and that any changes in demographics were of private decision-making and were not state action. [FN26] The Tenth Circuit again reversed, holding, \"an injunction takes on a life of its own and becomes an edict quite independent of the law it is meant to effectuate\". (FN27] The Supreme Court did not rule on the board's assignment plan but on the issue of whether the litigation could be reopened for actions taken by the board following the declaration of unitary status. In affinning the district court's decision not to reopen the litigation, the Supreme Court also modified its standard of the elimination of segregation \"root and branch,\" substituting the lesser standard of to the \"extent practicable.\" The Court held: \"Petitioners urge that we reinstate the decision of the District Court terminating the injunction, but we think that the preferred course is to remand the case to the court so that it may decide, in accordance with this opinion, whether the Board made a sufficient showing of constitutional compliance as of J 985, when the SRP (Student Reassignment Plan] was adopted, to allow the injunction to be dissolved. The District Court should address itself to whether the Board had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was\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\u003eWilliam Gordon Associates\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":"tws_oid16_33551","title":"Essie Steadman, 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":["2006-06-23"],"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/278537562"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Segregation","Education","Hoxie (Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Essie Steadman, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33551"],"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":"noa_sohpcr_u-0178","title":"Oral history interview with Suzanne Post, June 23, 2006","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Thuesen, Sarah Caroline","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941"],"dcterms_creator":["Post, Suzanne, 1933-"],"dc_date":["2006-06-23"],"dcterms_description":["Though she is best known for her work in helping eliminate race-based segregated education in Louisville and launching Louisville's Metropolitan Housing Coalition, Suzanne Post insists that her most important work centered on women's rights. After the 1975 court-ordered busing that merged and desegregated Jefferson County and Louisville City schools (she was president of the ACLU in Kentucky, which filed the desegregation suit), Post realized how much gender inequality still existed in these same newly desegrated districts. She organized volunteers to monitor Louisville's Title IX violations. Eventually, the federal government sent an outside monitor, which caused administrators to make a few concessions. Post reflects on how class issues divided the women's movement and ultimately prevented it from being as effective as it could have been. One of her biggest struggles, she says, was to get the ACLU to recognize a feminist agenda. After leaving the ACLU, she became the director of the Metropolitan Housing Coalition, and she found that her agenda balanced well with the concerns of the housing advocates. Post reflects on what she sees as economic and racial injustices brought about by urban renewal programs. Along with the resegregation of downtowns, Post worries about the destruction of community structures that provide support to poorer income families. Post retired when she developed lung cancer. Though she acknowledges the progress that has been made in civil rights, Post laments that much work remains to be done. She hopes that people remember her commitment to eradicating injustice and credits the women who surrounded and supported her.","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."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Women political activists--Kentucky--Louisville","Feminists--Kentucky--Louisville","Feminism--Kentucky--Louisville","Women's rights--Kentucky--Louisville","Sex discrimination in education--Kentucky--Jefferson County","Housing--Kentucky--Louisville"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Suzanne Post, June 23, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/U-0178/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Duration: 01:47:27"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Post, Suzanne, 1933-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_sibley-commission","title":"Sibley Commission","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Huff, Christopher Allen"],"dc_date":["2006-06-22"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Sibley Commission. In 1960 Governor Ernest Vandiver Jr., forced to decide between closing public schools or complying with a federal order to desegregate them, tapped state representative George Busbee to introduce legislation creating the General Assembly Committee on Schools. Commonly known as the Sibley Commission, the committee was charged with gathering state residents' sentiments regarding desegregation and reporting back to the governor. The report issued by the Sibley Commission laid the foundation for the end of massive resistance to desegregation in the state and helped avoid a showdown between Vandiver and the federal government.","GSE identifier: SS8H11"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"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":["Georgia. General Assembly. Committee on Schools","Segregation in education--Georgia--Atlanta","School integration--Georgia--Atlanta","School integration--Massive resistance movement--Georgia","Discrimination in education--Law and legislation--Georgia--Atlanta","African Americans--Education--Georgia","Education--Georgia","African Americans--Civil rights--Georgia","Civil rights--Georgia","Federal-state controversies--Georgia","Federal-city relations--Georgia--Atlanta","Intervention (Federal government)--Georgia","Race relations","Atlanta (Ga.)--Race relations--History--20th century","Race discrimination--Georgia--Atlanta","Racism--Georgia--Atlanta","Freedom of speech--Georgia","Prayer--Georgia","Atlanta Public Schools","Public schools--Georgia--Atlanta","School closings--Georgia","Atlanta (Ga.)--History--20th century","Atlanta (Ga.)--Politics and government--20th century","Georgia--History--20th century","Georgia--Politics and government--20th century","Government, Resistance to--Georgia--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Sibley Commission"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/education/sibley-commission/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"ARTICLE TITLE,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["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_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Vandiver, S. Ernest (Samuel Ernest), 1918-2005","Sibley, John A. (John Adams), 1888-1986"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33550","title":"Lynne Turley, 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":["2006-06-20"],"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/278536873"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Music","Memphis City Schools","Education"],"dcterms_title":["Lynne Turley, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33550"],"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":"tws_oid16_33549","title":"Ethel Tompkins, 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":["2006-06-19"],"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/278536234"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Segregation","Education"],"dcterms_title":["Ethel Tompkins, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33549"],"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":"tws_oid16_33548","title":"Eddie Mae Hawkins, 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":["2006-06-16"],"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/278535526"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Race relations","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968"],"dcterms_title":["Eddie Mae Hawkins, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33548"],"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":"bcas_bcmss0837_36","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":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["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/36"],"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 ducati9n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us June 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III JUN 3 0 2D06 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ittt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro   Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  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 DNISION RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2006. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 29, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 3 O 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 n May 31 2006, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 wer\nas follows D - $60,312,5-ii 1,119, 52028 he allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at Ma 31 006, sub\"ect to eriodic adjustments were as follows RSD-$67,135,18 LRSD - $34,528,908 CSSD - $57,834 709 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 ased on the information available, the ADE calculated .a,..t..,.M...,a.._.....,..._.,. ..... .::.:\n...:.....:.i 5/06, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 Base on the in onnation le, tlie .ADE calculate 5/06 subject to riodic ents G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 istributions for FY 05/06 at May 31, 2006, totaled $12,735,719. Allotmen , calculated for FY 05/06 was 14 011 194 subect to eriodic adjustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, 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 June 30, 2006 31 2006, wee J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 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 June 30, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD- $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD -$1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 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 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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\nPCS SD - 5 of the 4 7 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 busfor$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) o. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 I. 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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 1 O 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. 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 June 30, 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 afterthe 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. 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 June 30, 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. Clearance 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 reviewtheirfindings 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. \"' Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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, ttie Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and ap,.__......,.....,._. MT and its executive summa(Y\nfor the month of Ma . 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 30, 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, educaUonal technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 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 O.ngoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 Startn Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Startn 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 developmentforthe 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new 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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999.  On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 Disaggregati\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_1778","title":"Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Project management","School integration","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1778"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["35 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for hearing; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) brief in support of response to Joshua's motion for hearing; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, response to Court directive of June 21, 2006; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:S2c.\"V-u0866-WR'N ilc:vi nf;/?1/2006 INTIIB TTNTI'ED STATES DIS1lUCT COURT EASTERN mSTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~-n:vlJ nTVT~TnN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT~ ET AL. MRS. 1-0P'PNE JOSJTTTA., ET AL N0.082 P. 2 Page 1 of 2 PLAIN'ra'F INTERVENORS JNTER.VENORS MOTION FOil BEt\\BJNG ON BEHALF OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua I:ntervenors, in compliance with Section I of the little Rocle School District Compliance Remedy fikd June 30, 2004, mpectfully move the Court for a hearing in crder ro b!mg-probll;_'!'mi;. t.n the attention of the Court with respect to the tittle Rock School ~trict s implementation of the Compliance Remedy. '- We have infonned Little Rock School District s counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, about tbi5 motion and while he objects to it, he does not oppose a court hearing. Respectfully submitted, /I/John W, Walker ____________ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Arkansas 72206 ~01-374-1758  501-3744187 (fax) E=::il: jcl;w-\u0026gt;-Jk:3tt'!@11~l.t'.'.om 1  JUN. 21. 2006 4: 1SPM J\"Ol-tl W WALKER P A N0.082 P.3 case 4:is2-cv.:waas-w~w Fl!Ad 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE QF si-:t\u0026lt;VlCi I .fa h~;-eertify_tl!.~t i:m this 21\" day of June, 2006 the following motion has been fiic:d wil~ ~ C~..t.'EC: ::::,':!=:n ~!hkh will i;end notification of such filing to all counsei of recorci. IJ!lohnW,Walp;: 2 --- -- --------- - - - - . I JVl-ft'i W WALKER PA N0,082 T ~ T T\"'l T TTT ..,f,..l_ ,..1...r_-..t..t..V....- .Y.Y -__ UT A 1 V L/ 1)  LJ yy r1..LJ.L~ .I.. I._, ..l.  .. LL A,. .......... \"\".,,; T h1A1 ~ ....... , ,, .... ., -- -- 172J l:f; w:Jrra; Litrie x.ocir. .A.rK(ui.j\"-) 72206 Telephone (50ij 3i4-S7So Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION Cu'VER SB:E~T P.1 --------------- :D~~ .lune 21. 2006 To: Gene Jones Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sauler: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ___ (,tnciutiing cover sneeij] PA.GE(S), INCLUDING TF~ COVRR SHEET. IF YOU DO Nar RECEJVJ:.:ALL l'HE PAGES, .ELEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 314-3758\u0026gt;11 The informationeamaiaedin this \u0026amp;csimile message is attomeyprivilcged andconfideniialinformation intended only for the use of 1hc individual or entity namod aDQvt;. rr ~ .... ~ .. ::- of :hl:: =~~!!~ i~ !!.\".'t the mt.ended recipient, or the employee or agent responsibie w dc;livc1 ;. tut.~ :..t...:.d.::! :eci~i~, yi:m ,we hereby notifled mat any disscmimdicm, dis1nOUJio,n or wpy~ \"t .:.ii wi-\"l\":-::t:~~ is ~rl~~ ~.ahibited. If you have received Ibis commumcation ~error, pu.isK i,;;m;;~h'~ :::.~'\".l.: by te!~h.~n111, Mid Tet\\mi. the original message to us at the aboV.e address via UM: U.S. ~u.\u0026gt;-:al Sc.-~-:~ Th='\"\"\"\"'.!. - - ----- Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 21, 2006 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: JUN 2 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOijlJORING I just received your Motion for a Hearing on Behalf of Joshua Intervenors. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2006, please file a supplement to this motion which will apprise me and your opposing counsel much more fully in the premises. Err, if you are to err at all, on the side of specificity. After receiving supplement, a hearing will be set if it appears one is necessary. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement, also with specificity, within five days after service ofthe supplement. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts .gov a,iessage-Id : \u0026lt;68360l@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; 9lcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download .a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/22/2006 at 9:08 AM CDT and filed on 6/21/2006 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26 / 1998 Document Number : 4020 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4020 , 26052,,MAGIC,,,2005401 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER, Counsel for Joshua Intervenors is to file by 6/28/06 a supplement re [4018] MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorene Joshua. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement within 5 days after service of Joshua Intervenors supplement. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 6/21/06 . (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document 8)riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=10957 94525 [Date=6/22/2006] [FileNumber=683 600:-0] [70b999c859edla527653c3c3e9826a037ela38d6ea03dd7cafbd7b7e86beed14092ae352049b4ce 636dfdf2f9d227045ec417b43f5176ed93cd56b211703d489]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag . gov, angela.dover@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj.com . _Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; - jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING For its Response, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: -RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2006 OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Section I of the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy requires that the parties irrimediately bring to the Court's attention any problems which arise with respect to the Compliance Remedy. 2. The Joshua lntervenors filed a Motion today asking for a hearing to bring unspecificed problems to the attention of the Court. The Joshua Intervenors' Motion contains no factual allegations and does not identify any particular compliance issue. 3. Prior to any hearing, Joshua should be required to allege particular violations of the Compliance Remedy so that LRSD may prepare to present its defense at the hearing. 4. LRSD denies that its counsel told counsel for the Joshua Intervenors that he does not oppose a court hearing. It is LRSD's position that a hearing is appropriate only after the Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 lntervenors have alleged facts which would constitute a violation of the Compliance Remedy. 5. LRSD denies that it has engaged in any violations of the Compliance Remedy. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays thatthe Court require the Joshua lnte_rveners to present specific factual allegations in support of any claim that LRSD has failed to follow the Compliance Remedy before scheduling a hearing on the issue. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 _By: /s/ CHRISTOPHERHELLER#81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I certify that on June 21 , 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th~ Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state,ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RECEiVED JUN 2 3-2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MOtllTORII\u0026amp; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING ___ .Rule 7(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a motion \"shall state with particularity the grounds therefore, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.\" Rule 7 .2 of the local district court rules requires that motions \"shall be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of relevant facts and applicable law.\" The Joshua Intervenors have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l) and Local Rule 7.2. Their Motion for Hearing should therefore be denied: Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: Isl CHRISTOPHER HELLER #81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District F:\\Home\\BRENDAKIFLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MOTION FOR HEARING.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 22, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier(@,ae:. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com. siones(a),jlj :com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller F:\\Homc\\BRENDAK\\FLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MO~N FOR HEARING.wpd United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V . . * * * * * * * * * * * * Pulaski County Board of Education; * Patricia Gee, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock *' School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy; Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges~ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court's I denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. ~Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered. into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit  of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that ifLRSD substantial1y complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3 - Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.l provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the fonn of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a . compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affinned. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment :that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory perfonnance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially comp lied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.l of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2.7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever detennined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement --5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthennore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: (I) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir.2001) (\"[l]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir; 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan, 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965 . . III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Scierice (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -T- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had irpplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2. 7 .1 was to make sure that the programs promised under  2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAs. so ciate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, . it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" Id. at 1077. -9- In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district CO\\.!rt set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04-school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved. in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and Band the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and Bis that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" jg,_ at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev., 807F.2d 1433, 1438; 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. ... If there is any ambiguity in the ... order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlinetfhow LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[m]aintain written records of .. . the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new~ comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7\" to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to\"[ c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003. . . . Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive . mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id.. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific 2. 7 \"academic programs\" ( e:g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis. to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts-A andB of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess eacluJfthe  2.7 programs .... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2. 7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform-\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its . 2002 order, the .district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1.  Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation.. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superflumis requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2.7.1 obligations. -14- LRSD's 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and Bin the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2.7.1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient chall.enge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD' s compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is -likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain . meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy_ (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and thenistrict court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was. contemplated bJ the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- Corr., 246 F.3d 267,281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals:'); Annstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perfonn is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD 's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perfonn the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be fonnally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional infonnation and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom infonnation was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being perfonned on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua ori December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- , K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that - LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had . been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer availafil.e to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshu~ had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD 's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the . line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?)' Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.l program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpaid.\"' l.d:. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirements thatmay seem to imp.ose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be successful. With these observations, the judgment is affinned. - GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affinn the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewaldv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new tenns that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Hollandv. NJ Dep'tofCorr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and shoold not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7. l of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD's quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its . Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2. 7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD' s  curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, notto a permanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goal[]\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District; P laintifli' Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; WayneJoshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, v. * Appeal from the United. States  * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski-County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.;. Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock - I I I I School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public* Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capadty as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; :j\u0026gt; Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER,. Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since l 956~ the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little R~-S-Ch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th .Cir. i'985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Councy Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arno Id's Court, 5 8 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts of LR.SD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Coun1,y. 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, .it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion. of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD' s obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion ofthe2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5 . In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Littfe Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2.d. 988,.1089  '(E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.rprovided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy)  designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Annstrong, 359 E}d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7 .1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. Councy School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five are~ etf a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations, because ith~ substantially complied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7.1 \"). As the district court noted in.2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" ML. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD - to \"implement programs~ policies and/or procedures designed to improve. and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. Tis colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement oflocal authoriiy by .an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( 1) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD 's obligations under section 2. 7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 FJd 1013, 1017 (8th Cir .. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the tenns of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. m. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting tenninofogy employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised P Ian took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- - (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim 'Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan.  The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5, 2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2. 7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring,. Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. ~ Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-Schoo I Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan;. PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy (various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School.TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High SchooL Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance  Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its fmal Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained addttional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LR.SD had evaluated fourteen prograrns.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had iqiplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan; 237 F. Supp. 2d at\" 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were: \"all of the programs ... that LR.SD was implementing in. accprdance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section2.7.1 oftheRevisedPlanrequiredLRSDto assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy,. Comprehensi:ve Partnerships forMathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters- (}IIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- r achievement. If the assessment of a .program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD' s substantial compliance with  2. 7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing.a rigcmms annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id; at I 076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the . terms of the Revised Plan .. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K~3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schbols; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much ;, more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on  certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part of LRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id; at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is. interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\"  1d. at 1077. -9- - . In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" 14:. The district  court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district collit set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the . academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those , programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each. program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c} the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a _grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .. '. . [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluati.om,. any changes or modifications should be made in those prograins ... Jn addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are . detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy .. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B-and the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" id. at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD' s Interim Compliance Report. Cf Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev.; 807F.2d'1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant .... If there is any ambiguity in the . . . order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.'\"). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. Tire Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student' assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m]aintain written records of ... the results of the  annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD' s interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.;' The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan   2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify. orreplace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new; comprehensive. evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. ~ 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a- copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72.}. Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised:'.f'Ian, requested that the 0DM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement.  -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of\"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3.. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented-pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation:   ' ' The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a.National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science.e.vaiuation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. IQ,_ at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic progm,ns\" ( e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, er Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- - D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs. .. _ I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programS'-\"\"'because, on its face, no.thing.in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. M,_at8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated thatLRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In. its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, . plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addres.sed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed,Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSE did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7.1 obligations. -14- . I LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1 : it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the Aftican:-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court foundthat LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the ,plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). '---. At the outset, we.have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its tenns beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any tcquirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th-Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its ternis.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- - Qm:.., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terrns when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's g.ools.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their ownjudgriient as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.'1). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. .e In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as.representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged. in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years~  2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this. Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows:  A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the. preparation of formal program  evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. . The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It inay take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need.for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achie.yement of African-American students .. . . C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key : 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools. throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr; Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identtfy the four key  2. 7 programs that should be . formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005- 06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels,-:who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. -18- . K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter.; I wiU schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions. quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that.LRSD had not substantially complied with the tenns of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are tenned its ''Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and.Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the  Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to. demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's . Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD' s compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle. it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its d1sagreement_ with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Withwt recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSI? submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remed~ we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof: all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court   in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- - are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. NeverJieless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the _ line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and.the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple_ language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do th~t it is unwilling to: do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying -with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at tliis time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements-of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the . moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation th~ substantial compliance .means just that, not mathematical precision'. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Rerised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Courtformulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.1. program assessment/ evaluation process that will allow it to detennine the effectiveness-of each of the key  2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. , D. Ct Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD 's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading; math, and. science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a de,bt unpaid.\"' ill at 68. We adtfto these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that -which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - - - - ------ - - ------------~ - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered. into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirememsi:hat may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one fonn or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be. successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodiedin the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d  ~ J at 1300 (quotmgSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, !.,..concurring)). Although we defer in large measureto the district court's interpretation-or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by   imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F .3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous tenns of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ Dep't of Corr., 246 F: .3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and-should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the tenns agreed to by the parties in section 2. 7; 1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those tenns. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.T' for a year and a half and ''to use. all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing Ea) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction irrthe 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"asses~ment\" and a more forma~ research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are.   untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon:assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in_subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Toe district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross ( or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those  programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the. 2002, Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in . assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum ami instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court): The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- - -- - - --- - ---- ------------~ - However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply.embedded\" requirement, viewed in ligfit of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD' s compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At thispoint, vacatingthe 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD' s efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 R.emedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at9-1 0; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- 1 . be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out.of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy.would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without OlSIUpting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy . . Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- _,u,,.ai  .::t:J~ 4 ' ,j' U\"'rl JVHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P. 2/ 10 .~ 4:82-\u0026lt;::V-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN nm UNITBD STATF.s DJSTlUCT COURT EASTRi.~DlS'f\u0026amp;AICT OP. APJ\"-,.ANSAS ~'E.-:.\"T\u0026amp;.i.~ DIVISION LttrI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DJSTRICI' NO. 1. ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL KATHFJUNE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS BF..ffllNSE IQ CQJJBT PIBEC'JlYi OF JUNE 21, 20Q6 The Com:t directed. Joshua to submit a statement in support of it$ tequest for a bearing by u,day. JO\u0026amp;hna submits the attached Affidavit of Ms. Joy Spnll\u0026amp;C% in support of its motion and request for a hearm,. - Respectfully submittoo, /s/Jobn W. W!!ke{ Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 221.ocustA\"VCDUC JOHN W. WAL~ PA I exingtan, MA 02421 1723 Broadway (781) 86?-.19SS Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 (501) ~74-~75\u0026amp; (SO!) 374-4187 (Fu) JUI'!, c:ts. c:= 4; ,:j4t-'M JVHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P. 3/10 case 4;82-CV-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06128/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tbat OD this_ day of ______ 2006, I electronically filed tbe fmegoing with the Clcn of Court using the CMIECF SystcDi, which shall send notification to all counsel associated with this case and who .are registered with the system and by othet means to the unn,gistered pc2'SODS listed below. Clayr.on R. Blackstock Mitd2ell, BJacbtoct. Baines. Wapitt, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PU.C 1010 West Thud Street Post Office Box 1S10 Little Rock, All 72203-1S10 Noanm J. Chachkin NAACP ~iol Dd~se \u0026amp; ~..:.0-..al Fund, h:c. 99 Hudson Sir~ ft  .  ,l'AA, .)Wfe LOUU New York. 1,n 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attomey 0eoen1~s Office ~-Pricn Tower Building 323 Center Street Suitc200 Little Rock. .AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thomp500 \u0026amp; Lle~llyn, P.A. 412 Sooth Eiglttffl!th Stmet P~t Qffi~ Box 818 IN !HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EAST~ Ul:SlRICI OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ll'!'l'.LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LOP.ENE JOSHU--6.., ET .AL KATdERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO.04:82c'V00869WRWIJTR AFFIDA VII Ql lQY SPRINGER ' ,-. Comes now me afrumt, Joy Spri.n. ger~w ho states under oath: N0.152 P.4/10 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANiS INTERVENORS 1. My name i.s Joy Springer and I have been assisn,:d by counsel for the Joshua Intervenoxs to monitor the Little Roek School District's compliance with the court's order of June 30, 2004 (later referred to as the Compliance Remedy). .?... T-h -~:-.1w. . n.r evinu.d.v, !!ubm.itted affidavits herein indicatin2- that l have a two lnchelors ' . degrees, one in ~ Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Mamrs degree in Education Administration from UALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years. 3. r have been.regularly monitoring program evaluati cornpliance before and especially s-.nce the court's order of June 30) 2004. My .monitoring has involved the following activiues: l .JUl~  .::.t:1.\u0026lt;::.~b 4 ' d::\u0026gt;t-'1'1 JOHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.5/ 10 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program evaiuati.ons; b) conveISations with PRE staff, the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE' s quarterly reports regar~ the compliance remedy; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I have rcgulatly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM, what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, fo\u0026lt;..-used and deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my wol'k. I have had 311 occasion to review district publi~ons which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is dcmons1rafed. for cxm:npl~, by the district's professional d.eveloP\"\"-t c .. lendar fur the y~rs 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006? approximately three weeks lx,fore the end of the second school year addressed in the ccrmplienc~ remedy f 11nd ::.l'!l-,sr two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], ~en for tbose 2 JUN.28.2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P.6/ 10 dates. it de~ net m-?.f-l\"n. the nnmher of -S'tm wbo received professional developmem with ?CSpect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district' .s cmricu1um. This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in. the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court upected (Page 62, Fcotnote39 oft~ C.ompMnee Remedy) to be apart of the comprehensive assessment process will not be uudertami until tbe fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1. 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questioanaire postpOned) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse: to eith_\"'!' supplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comp1~\\ei:isivt asse5:,,1ue:ut prveess in.to the in..'\"tr.z....\"tion :programs. LP.SD Complinnc--\" Report March 1, 2006 at 3. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE' s use. {Interview with Dr. De.Jamette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's - req,Ji.-rem.em: that the difflict have a PRE department in the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program msessment/evaluation process (Ptige 68, of tho Compliance Remedy). 3. Various factors suggest that the vision of the cU1Tent administration of the LRSD de~ the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE ~ed m~Jy ti) the Suy_,erintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would reali.u the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court.. Jn March 2005, Dr. to sui,ervise PRE. Theresfter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities u,ron PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major foCU!. These responsibilities :included the pteparation school improvement plans for a. lqe 3 JUN.G~-2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.152 P.7/10 nmn~er of schools as wen at- developing and cmying out surveys required as part of the school i.wptovemem effort. I un.de::r.:m-:f \"PP.E's m~j~r fucu~ to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying out of required assessments and evaln.a.ti.ons, and the emberlding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD s cmriculum and instruction program. 9. Int.he two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation. Dr .. Olivine Robar.s has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LR.SD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Brooks hM made with respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. A.!?.at..hereY\"\"'\"le of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the 2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation COllSisted. for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. - ~ the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active participation by other ,Hqn,,;ct st!tf who h~ the respo~~;hiJity of actually implementing the programs being ~aluated. 11. A third example of PRE's diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The 1,'esting Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham_ left the district l)rior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contto....ct 1H\"';\";cJu.d from ! 1 month!i: tc:, 10 months as a result of the district's ''reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testina Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. Arthur Olds).[Compllimce Report March 1, 2006] He resigned after approximately 3 months on thcjob.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position has not been nllet:f. Tt is my understanding that one of PREs statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4. .Jun  .:.cs. \u0026lt;::.~IOo 4 ; .:!bl\"rl J VHN W WRLKER P A N0.152 P.8/ 10 ~...c:l =gr.e1 tru: .orlrlP.tl ~onsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for jub vacancies, the Te.,~ COO?dinator positinn has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at t,\"\" Tn~..t ctfonal ~~ouree Cent.er (IRC) of the LRSD. The puxposc of the meetini was for PRE staff to update Joahua and the ODM regarding the mtm~ nfthe Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the neeessary test data for the Step 2 evalu:rtiom due on October ! , 2006. PRE Director, Or. DeJamette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data wo!!ld be SY~.h thst m extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJamettc stated that she would provide the necessary information to the lSD counsel for the fi1ina of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1, 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process - into its cumculum and ins1ruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in fonnulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2. 7 .1. Based upon this commumcation and inf0tlll8tion. comaincd in paragraphs 5.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PR P. :miff members and the ODM representative. Ocnc Jones, that because the district was not in compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its cumculum and instruction programs . as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has ~ommunicated similar reservations to the LRSD' s PRE staff JUt'i.C:l:S.\u0026lt;:::~ 4'::lbl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.9/ 10 14. Foll~ inf'ormini l)r. ne.Jamette, .PRE Dl!ector, that Joshua would invoke the and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met with Mr. Jones thereafter. It is noteWOrthy that they did not io.lu.de Pll Oireetm- Oe.Ta.mette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly 8$k.ed that Joshua be fully involved in these discussions. the district chose t~ involve only ODM 15. I am of the view that the LRSD h3s continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30. 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example. it appears to me that Dr. DcJamettc is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She bas indic31'Cd as much during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD has no definitive plan for the USe of \"assessments'' being geuer.itcd by the Compass Leaming programs. Furdlermore, the school district's adxninistration bas not acted in keeping - Joshua and the court informed through timely reports., of tbe necessity for more time. and for modification of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluatiOrtS which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's fmlurc to provide the n~my data. Afflant saith nothing further; 6 JUl'i. a:,,~ 4; ~bl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A STATE OF AR.KANSAS) COUNTY OF ILYt1vJt.t \\ 7 N0.152 P.10/10 ..,...,,,.c.o.c.t:iO\u0026lt;Jo \u0026lt;-+,::1\u0026lt;-+r-11 JVMl'i W WHLKt.1-\u0026lt; t-' A N0.152 P.1/ 10 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 17:15 .Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (SOJ) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMJSSIO]S COVER SHEET Dat~: June 28 ,2006 To: GeneJones Fa.x: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sende: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ( (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S}, INCLUDING THIS COVF;R SHEEI'. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE.A.LL THE PA.GES, PLEA.SE CALL ''\u0026lt;(S01) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" Theinfonnationcourainedinthisfac:similemessageisattorneyprivilegcd.andconfidemialinfonnationintended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Iftbe r    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_u-0184","title":"Oral history interview with Diane English, May 20 2006","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Thuesen, Sarah Caroline","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, 35.22709, -80.84313"],"dcterms_creator":["English, Diane, 1957-"],"dc_date":["2006-05-20"],"dcterms_description":["This is the second interview in a two-part series with community activist Diane English. Here, English describes her work with the Belmont Neighborhood Community Strategy Force (BNCSF), of which she was elected president in 2003. She discusses her efforts to redevelop the Belmont Community Development Corporation (CDC) to give residents more stake in their neighborhood. English expresses the difficulties of sustaining resident involvement; to help meet this challenge, she took classes to learn how to be a neighborhood leader. English says that the media drew public attention to Belmont, which assisted in the BNCSF's efforts to remove the structural barriers placed in the neighborhood by the police department to help prevent drug dealers from entering the neighborhood. She maintains that the barriers did more harm than good, as they detracted from the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood rather than obstructing drug deals. Skeptical not only about such strategies, English also conveys her ambivalence about the police presence in Belmont. She also maintains that the city's bureaucracy limited the efforts of well-meaning residents to eliminate drug selling and other criminal behavior from the community, but she is hopeful for the future of Belmont. Though she worries that the revitalization of Belmont will increase property taxes, homeownership keeps her in the neighborhood. English ends the interview with a discussion of racial prejudice in Charlotte and the role of race in school curricula. She asserts that positive lessons from black history, instead of black animosity against whites, will bring about greater interracial cooperation.","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."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Community activists--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American women--North Carolina--Charlotte","Charlotte (N.C.)--Race relations","Community development--North Carolina--Charlotte","African American neighborhoods--North Carolina--Charlotte","African Americans--Housing--North Carolina--Charlotte","African Americans--North Carolina--Charlotte--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Diane English, May 20 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/U-0184/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 14, 2008).","Interview participants: Diane English, interviewee; Sarah Thuesen, interviewer.","Duration: 00:46:50.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Kristin Shaffer. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["English, Diane, 1957-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_33547","title":"Charlene Trotter, 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":["2006-05-19"],"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/278523975"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Education","Segregation","Hoxie (Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Charlene Trotter, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33547"],"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":"tws_oid16_33546","title":"Charles Mercer, 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":["2006-05-19"],"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/278534752"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Memphis (Tenn.)","Civil rights","Law","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968"],"dcterms_title":["Charles Mercer, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33546"],"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}],"pages":{"current_page":270,"next_page":271,"prev_page":269,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3228,"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}}]}}