{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16866","title":"William H. Townsend interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"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":["Townsend, William"],"dc_date":["2002-06-04"],"dcterms_description":["Interview discussing his memories of L.C. and Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"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":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African Americans","Civil rights workers"],"dcterms_title":["William H. Townsend interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16866"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, L. C., 1901-1980","Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1739","title":"District Court, plaintiff's reply brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-06-02/2002-06-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","School integration","School districts","Little Rock School District","African Americans--Education","School discipline","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, plaintiff's reply brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing."],"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/1739"],"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":["116 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Hl::,RSCHEL H. PRIDAY ( 1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. )A. BUTTRY, P.A. FR KS. URSERY, P.A. OS DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAM . CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCK..LIPP NISBET, JR .. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR .. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR .. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J , LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARONER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. OAVlD 0 . WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attention: Linda Bryant Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Linda: FRJDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE . SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-  811 TELEPHONE  79 - 695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-7622898 FAX 870-762-2918 June 12, 2002 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JON ANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICHAELE. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN RECEIVED JUN 1 ~ 2002 OFFICE OF DESEBREGATIOII MONITORING BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH o t cOUNSEL D.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.O. MCALLISTER CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1509 FAX 501-244-534  heller@fec .net As you requested in our phone conversation of today, I have enclosed a copy of Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status reflecting a filing date of June 7, 2002. I have handwritten a corrected date of service on the last page. /bk Enc. Sincerely, ~ Brenda Kampman, Legal Assistant for Christopher Heller ,. -  E.~,~::- . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. A. Revised Plan 2.12.2. 2. I 2.2: LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Revised Plan was approved by Judge Wright on the joint motion of the LRSD and Joshua on April 10, 1998. Over three years later, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. In their objections filed June 25, 2001 , Joshua made no reference to Revised Plan 2.12.2. Yet, Joshua now argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to investigate, reduce and/or eliminate the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. This argument should be rejected as untimely, inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 and contrary to the interpretation given  2.12.2 by the parties during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua's argument is untimely because they raised no objection to the LRSD's compliance with 2.12.2 in their objections filed June 25, 2001 . Joshua's argument is also inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 which limits application of the provision to \"programs and activities.\" Discipline and achievement cannot fairly be construed as \"programs\" or \"activities.\" ' .'!SAS ~-.:..:... Finally, neither the LRSD nor Joshua interpreted  2.12.2 as requiring investigation of the - racial disparities in discipline and achievement during the term of the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3015 (Supp. 200l)(\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). The LRSD's obligations with regard to discipline and achievement were specifically set forth in 2.5 and 2.7, respectively. Those sections set forth Joshua's entire \"remedy\" relat~d to discipline and achievement issues. Revised Plan  2.12.2 was intended to address racial disparities \"in programs and activities\" which might arise but were not otherwise covered by the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3021 (Supp. 2001)(\"If there is a contradiction between general provisions and more detailed, specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify the meaning of the general provisions.\"). Joshua's current interpretation of 2.12.2 was never brought to the attention of the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua knew no later than March of2000 that the LRSD was not \"investigating\" the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. Joshua's silence - precludes it from arguing for a contrary interpretation after complete performance by the LRSD. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (6th Cir. 1997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a parties obligations and duties under a consent decree); U.S. v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231 , 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985)(\"We note that, for purposes of enforcement, consent decrees are to be construed as contracts.\"); Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349,355, 990 S.W.2d 581 , 585 (1999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275,278, 647 S.W.2d 492,493 (1983)(\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and 2 suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the - breach.\"). In fact, Joshua's belated assertion that 2.12.2 applied to the racial disparity in discipline and achievement represents an effort by Joshua to shed the burden of proof they accepted in Revised Plan  11. Joshua clearly failed to meet their burden of establishing that the current racial disparities in discipline and achievement resulted from discrimination by the LRSD. Recognizing this failure, Joshua argues that  2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to determine the cause of these disparities. For the reasons set forth above, this argument is without merit. Discipline and achievement are not \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Consequently, Revised Plan 2.12.2 is irrelevant to the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.7. A. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Joshua argues that \"[t]he LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy [the] achievement disparity between black and white pupils.\" Joshua's Response, p. 52. This is not true. The LRSD implemented programs designed to improve and remediate AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by the Revised Plan. Dr. Carnine testified as follows: Q. I see. Did you adopt a single program by which to narrow the achievement gap between black -- the academic achievement between black and white students, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement which we signed? A single program, Doctor, one program, did you do that? A. Ifl may, I am going to say yes, because I believe ultimately ifwe remediate achievement, that the gap will, in fact, close. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 378. Dr. Camine's response can be best understood when considered in light of the Court's comments which immediately preceded it. As in their Response, Joshua insisted at the hearing of talking about reducing the disparity, rather than improving African-American achievement. 3 Judge Wright interrupted Joshua's cross-examination of Dr. Carnine when counsel for Joshua - refused to recognize the distinction and stated: THE COURT: All right. I want to just again, and I don't want you to - I don't want you to get into an argument with him. But this witness takes the position that there is a difference between raising the achievement level of minority students and closing the disparity - the achievement gap. MR. W Al.KER: I understand, and that - THE COURT: And in his defense, I am not trying to take his side in this matter, I am trying to be a fair Judge, but in his defense, Section 2.7 of this plan requires the District to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" . . .. And so, what he is going to testify -- what he wants to testify to is not reducing the disparity, but increasing African-American achievement. And I am going to -- based on the language of the plan, I am going to let him stick to that. MR. WALKER: That's fine. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 376-77. Despite Judge Wright's admonishment, counsel for Joshua continued to question Dr. Carnine about the \"achievement gap,\" leading to Dr. Camine's testimony that improving African-American achievement should narrow the racial disparity in - achievement. Dr. Carnine testified that the Revised Plan's approach to reducing the racial disparity in achievement was to implement programs designed to improve African-American achievement. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 450-52. Dr. Carnine further testified that Joshua accepted that approach when they agreed to the Revised Plan. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 452. The parties' joint brief seeking approval of the Revised Plan supports Dr. Carnine's testimony. In that brief, the parties stated, \"With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement.\" See Docket No. 3108, p. 2 ( emphasis supplied). Therefore, there is no merit to Joshua's argument that the LRSD did not implement programs designed to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement. The LRSD did exactly what 4 the Revised Plan called for in that regard - it implemented programs designed to improve and - remediate African-American achievement. Joshua also argues that \"implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by [the] LRSD .... \" Joshua's Response, p. 51. To support this argument, Joshua primarily relies on the LRSD's Interim Report and Final Report which detail the implementation status of the District's comprehensive curriculum reforms. Joshua's argument fails to recognize that implementation of new curriculum programs is a process, not an event. Joshua's argument suggests that the Revised Plan required everything to be implemented on day one. If Joshua really believed this, they should have objected no later than when the LRSD filed its Interim Report, on which they rely heavily in their Response. They never objected to the status of the LRSD's implementation during the Revised Plan's term and should be estopped from objecting after the LRSD has completed performance. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  - 2.7. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in achievement required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance, rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (7th Cir. 2001 ). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in achievement and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the 5 case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and - control of schools to local authorities.\"). B. Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 : Program Assessment. 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 AfricanAmerican 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. Joshua's Response on this issue begins by misstating the LRSD's position. The LRSD does not contend that all it had to do to comply with  2. 7 .1 was administer annual assessments to students. That was step one in a two step process. The second step was using the assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan, 2.7.1. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 246. The LRSD did this, and Dr. Lesley provided the Court with several examples of program changes made by the LRSD based on the annual assessment data. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 247-75. - The distinction to be made is between an informal evaluation made using the annual assessment data and a formal, written program evaluation. The LRSD did both, although 2.7.1 only required the former. The formal, written program evaluations conducted pursuant to the Revised Plan were referred to as the Board-adopted Research Agenda. See Interim Report, p. 53. Joshua's outline of the various documents detailing the LRSD's efforts to comply with 2. 7. I completely ignores ODM's August 11, 1999 monitoring report. Joshua knew or should have known upon publication of that report that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African-American achievement; yet, Joshua raised no objection. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71; Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. The LRSD's March 2000 Interim Report again detailed the LRSD's plans for complying with 2.7.1. Again, Joshua raised no objection. If 6 Joshua believed the LRSD had an obligation to do more, then Joshua had an obligation to put the - LRSD on notice of that belief. Since they did not, they are estopped arguing that what the LRSD did was not enough. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. The LRSD substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1, and accordingly, should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard thereto. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. C. Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. Joshua concedes that \"(t]here is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the revised plan.\" Joshua focuses its attack on Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.5.4. Each of these sections will be discussed in tum below. 1. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.5. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in discipline required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD's in the imposition of discipline. See People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1076-77 (achievement disparity). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan 2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in discipline and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. Joshua came forward with no evidence ofracial discrimination by the LRSD, and accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan 2.5. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua takes out of context Dr. Linda Watson's testimony concerning the ODM's June 14, 2000, monitoring report on student discipline. See CX 583. Joshua would have this Court believe that the District and Dr. Watson completely ignored the report. While it is true that 7 Superintendent Carnine instructed Dr. Watson not to prepare a formal response to the report, Tr. - Nov. 19, 2001, p. 178, Dr. Watson explained in her testimony what the District did to address each ofODM's recommendations. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 85-102. Even if the LRSD had completely ignored the report, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to implement ODM's recommendations, and the report itself merely describes the recommendations as \"suggestions.\" ex 583, p. 121. 2. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua's argues that the District failed to meet its obligation under Revised Plan 2.5.4 based on evidence that the District did not maintain a document compiling the total number of behavior modification plans developed and that the District did not prepare a document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" The Revised Plan required neither. Joshua bore the burden of proof. See Revised Plan  11. There was no evidence that any student who needed a behavior modification plan did not get one. Dr. Watson testified that she reversed - suspensions and sent students back to school to do a behavior modification plans when necessary. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 136. The fact that the LRSD did not keep a list of all students with behavior modification plans falls far short of establishing noncompliance with  2.5.4. Therefore, the LRSD should be declared unitary with regard to student discipline. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Conclusion. Joshua concludes its discipline argument with the statement that \"Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish.\" Joshua's Brief, p. 15. What Joshua fails to comprehend is that this could just as easily be said about most of the District's administrators, principals and teachers. The LRSD agrees that there were things it could have done better. It said as much in both the Interim Report and Final Report. While the LRSD strives for perfection, that is not the legal standard. See Belk v. 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not - to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD Board of Directors can be trusted comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Joshua came forward with no evidence that they could not, and as a result, the LRSD is entitled to an order granting unitary status in accordance with Revised Plan  11. II. Summary Judgment. The LRSD moved for summary judgment with regard to those Revised Plan sections which were timely challenged by Joshua but which have not yet been litigated. The summary judgment process may be used to terminate a consent decree without an evidentiary hearing. See Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Summary judgment is appropriate when the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is - entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those parts of the record which demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The LRSD met its burden by pointing out that there is no evidence of noncompliance sufficient to cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody, 139 F.3d at 1199. This shifted the burden to Joshua to come forward with such evidence. See Matushita Blee. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1989). Joshua failed to meet their burden. Moreover, Joshua's failure to controvert the LRSD's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute means that those facts are deemed admitted. See Rule 56. l(c) of the Rules for the 9 United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Based on those - facts, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment with regard to all remaining issues. Joshua does not even purport to respond to the LRSD's motion for summary judgment. Rather, Joshua notes that the Court has already scheduled a hearing on the remaining Revised Plan sections to be litigated - as if this negated the need for them to respond. The summary judgment process is designed to determine whether a factual dispute exists which requires an' evidentiary hearing. Joshua failed to come forward with evidence establishing a factual dispute, and therefore, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on Mareh 15, 2002: ~ '1 ~o1);)-. Mr. John W. Walker J- J JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 - Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 11 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUN 11 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNIT ARY STATUS I. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. A. Revised Plan  2.12.2. 2.12.2: LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Revised Plan was approved by Judge Wright on the joint motion of the LRSD and Joshua on April 10, 1998. Over three years later, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. In their objections filed June 25, 2001, Joshua made no reference to Revised Plan 2.12.2. Yet, Joshua now argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to investigate, reduce and/or eliminate the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. This argument should be rejected as untimely, inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 and contrary to the interpretation given 2.12.2 by the parties during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua's argument is untimely because they raised no objection to the LRSD's compliance with 2.12.2 in their objections filed June 25, 2001. Joshua's argument is also inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 which limits application of the provision to \"programs and activities.\" Discipline and achievement cannot fairly be construed as \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Finally, neither the LRSD nor Joshua interpreted 2.12.2 as requiring investigation of the - racial disparities in discipline and achievement during the term of the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 4th , 3015 (Supp. 2001)(\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). The LRSD's obligations with regard to discipline and achievement were specifically set forth in 2.5 and 2.7, respectively. Those sections set forth Joshua's entire \"remedy\" related to discipline and achievement issues. Revised Plan 2.12.2 was intended to address racial disparities \"in programs and activities\" which might arise but were not otherwise covered by the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3021 (Supp. 2001)(\"Ifthere is a contradiction between general provisions and more detailed, specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify the meaning of the general provisions.\"). Joshua's current interpretation of 2.12.2 was never brought to the attention of the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua knew no later than March of2000 that the LRSD was not \"investigating\" the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. Joshua's silence - precludes it from arguing for a contrary interpretation after complete performance by the LRSD. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (6th Cir. l 997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a parties obligations and duties under a consent decree); U.S. v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985)(\"We note that, for purposes of enforcement, consent decrees are to be construed as contracts.\"); Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349,355, 990 S.W.2d 581,585 (1999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275,278, 647 S.W.2d 492,493 (1983)(\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and 2 suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the - breach.\"). In fact, Joshua's belated assertion that 2.12.2 applied to the racial disparity in discipline and achievement represents an effort by Joshua to shed the burden of proof they accepted in Revised Plan  11. Joshua clearly failed to meet their burden of establishing that the current racial disparities in discipline and achievement resulted from discrimination by the LRSD. Recognizing this failure, Joshua argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to determine the cause of these disparities. For the reasons set forth above, this argument is without merit. Discipline and achievement are not \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Consequently, Revised Plan 2.12.2 is irrelevant to the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.7. A. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Joshua argues that \"[t]he LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy [the] achievement disparity between black and white pupils.\" Joshua's Response, p. 52. This is not true. The LRSD implemented programs designed to improve and remediate AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by the Revised Plan. Dr. Carnine testified as follows: Q. I see. Did you adopt a single program by which to narrow the achievement gap between black -- the academic achievement between black and white students, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement which we signed? A single program, Doctor, one program, did you do that? A. If I may, I am going to say yes, because I believe ultimately if we remediate achievement, that the gap will, in fact, close. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 378. Dr. Carnine's response can be best understood when considered in light of the Court's comments which immediately preceded it. As in their Response, Joshua insisted at the hearing of talking about reducing the disparity, rather than improving African-American achievement. 3 Judge Wright interrupted Joshua's cross-examination of Dr. Carnine when counsel for Joshua - refused to recognize the distinction and stated: THE COURT: All right. I want to just again, and I don't want you to - I don't want you to get into an argument with him. But this witness takes the  position that there is a difference between raising the achievement level of minority students and closing the disparity- the achievement gap. MR. WALKER: I understand, and that - THE COURT: And in his defense, I am not trying to take his side in this matter, I am trying to be a fair Judge, but in his defense, Section 2.7 ofthis plan requires the District to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" .. . . And so, what he is going to testify-- what he wants to testify to is not reducing the disparity, but increasing African-American achievement. And I am going to -- based on the language of the plan, I am going to let him stick to that. MR. WALKER: That's fine. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 376-77. Despite Judge Wright's admonishment, counsel for Joshua continued to question Dr. Carnine about the \"achievement gap,\" leading to Dr. Carnine's testimony that improving African-American achievement should narrow the racial disparity in - achievement. Dr. Carnine testified that the Revised Plan's approach to reducing the racial disparity in achievement was to implement programs designed to improve African-American achievement. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 450-52. Dr. Carnine further testified that Joshua accepted that approach when they agreed to the Revised Plan. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 452. The parties' joint brief seeking approval of the Revised Plan supports Dr. Carnine's testimony. In that brief, the parties stated, \"With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement.\" See Docket No. 3108, p. 2 ( emphasis supplied). Therefore, there is no merit to Joshua's argument that the LRSD did not implement programs designed to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement. The LRSD did exactly what 4 the Revised Plan called for in that regard - it implemented programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Joshua also argues that \"implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by [the] LRSD ... . \" Joshua's Response, p. 51 . To support this argument, Joshua primarily relies on the LRSD's Interim Report and Final Report which detail the implementation status of the District's comprehensive curriculum reforms. Joshua's argument fails to recognize that implementation of new curriculum programs is a process, not an event. Joshua's argument suggests that the Revised Plan required everything to be implemented on day one. If Joshua really believed this, they should have objected no later than when the LRSD filed its Interim Report, on which they rely heavily in their Response. They never objected to the status of the LRSD's implementation during the Revised Plan's term and should be estopped from objecting after the LRSD has completed performance. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  - 2.7. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in achievement required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance, rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (7th Cir. 2001). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in achievement and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the 5 case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and - control of schools to local authorities.\"). B. Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 : Program Assessment. 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 AfricanAmerican 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. Joshua's Response on this issue begins by misstating the LRSD's position. The LRSD does not contend that all it had to do to comply with  2. 7 .1 was administer annual assessments to students. That was step one in a two step process. The second step was using the assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 246. The LRSD did this, and Dr. Lesley provided the Court with several examples of program changes made by the LRSD based on the annual assessment data. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 247-75 . - The distinction to be made is between an informal evaluation made using the annual assessment data and a formal, written program evaluation. The LRSD did both, although  2. 7 .1 only required the former. The formal, written program evaluations conducted pursuant to the Revised Plan were referred to as the Board-adopted Research Agenda. See Interim Report, p. 53. Joshua's outline of the various documents detailing the LRSD's efforts to comply with  2.7.1 completely ignores ODM's August 11 , 1999 monitoring report. Joshua knew or should have known upon publication of that report that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African-American achievement; yet, Joshua raised no objection. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71 ; Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. The LRSD's March 2000 Interim Report again detailed the LRSD's plans for complying with 2.7.1. Again, Joshua raised no objection. If 6 Joshua believed the LRSD had an obligation to do more, then Joshua had an obligation to put the - LRSD on notice of that belief. Since they did not, they are estopped arguing that what the LRSD did was not enough. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. The LRSD substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, and accordingly, should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard thereto. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. C. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. Joshua concedes that \"[t]here is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the revised plan.\" Joshua focuses its attack on Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.5.4. Each of these sections will be discussed in turn below. 1. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan 2.5. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in discipline required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD's in the imposition of discipline. See People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1076-77 (achievement disparity). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in discipline and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. Joshua came forward with no evidence ofracial discrimination by the LRSD, and accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan 2.5. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua takes out of context Dr. Linda Watson's testimony concerning the OD M's June 14, 2000, monitoring report on student discipline. See CX 583. Joshua would have this Court believe that the District and Dr. Watson completely ignored the report. While it is true that 7 Superintendent Carnine instructed Dr. Watson not to prepare a formal response to the report, Tr. - Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 178, Dr. Watson explained in her testimony what the District did to address each ofODM's recommendations. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 85-102. Even if the LRSD had completely ignored the report, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to implement ODM's recommendations, and the report itself merely describes the recommendations as \"suggestions.\" ex 583, p. 121. 2. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua's argues that the District failed to meet its obligation under Revised Plan 2.5.4 based on evidence that the District did not maintain a document compiling the total number of behavior modification plans developed and that the District did not prepare a document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" The Revised Plan required neither. Joshua bore the burden of proof. See Revised Plan 11. There was no evidence that any student who needed a behavior modification plan did not get one. Dr. Watson testified that she reversed - suspensions and sent students back to school to do a behavior modification plans when necessary. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 136. The fact that the LRSD did not keep a list of all students with behavior modification plans falls far short of establishing noncompliance with 2.5.4. Therefore, the LRSD should be declared unitary with regard to student discipline. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Conclusion. Joshua concludes its discipline argument with the statement that \"Dr. Watson had a vast array ofresponsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish.\" Joshua's Brief, p. 15. What Joshua fails to comprehend is that this could just as easily be said about most of the District's administrators, principals and teachers. The LRSD agrees that there were things it could have done better. It said as much in both the Interim Report and Final Report. While the LRSD strives for perfection, that is not the legal standard. See Belk v. 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not - to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD Board of Directors can be trusted comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Joshua came forward with no evidence that they could not, and as a result, the LRSD is entitled to an order granting unitary status in accordance with Revised Plan  11 . II. Summary Judgment. The LRSD moved for summary judgment with regard to those Revised Plan sections which were timely challenged by Joshua but which have not yet been litigated. The summary judgment process may be used to terminate a consent decree without an evidentiary hearing. See Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Summary judgment is appropriate when the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is - entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those parts of the record which demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The LRSD met its burden by pointing out that there is no evidence of noncompliance sufficient to cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199. This shifted the burden to Joshua to come forward with such evidence. See Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Com., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1989). Joshua failed to meet their burden. Moreover, Joshua's failure to controvert the LRSD's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute means that those facts are deemed admitted. See Rule 56.l(c) of the Rules for the 9 United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Based on those - facts, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment with regard to all remaining issues. Joshua does not even purport to respond to the LRSD's motion for summary judgment. Rather, Joshua notes that the Court has already scheduled a hearing on the remaining Revised Plan sections to be litigated - as if this negated the need for them to respond. The summary judgment process is designed to determine whether a factual dispute exists which requires an evidentiary hearing. Joshua failed to come forward with evidence establishing a factual dispute, and therefore, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-20-1-1 -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on Match 15,-2002: ;;\"1\u0026lt; 1 ~Oc) 2,, Mr. John W. Walker 1 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 - Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 11 .t'.IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL KATI:IERINE KNIGIIT, ET AL PLAlNTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ANDFOREMERGENCYHEARING ~002/ 041 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (''LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Ar.kansas Freedom of Infonnation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. The FOIA requests submitted by or on behalf of Joshua are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Also included in Exhibit 1 are requests for information made by Joshua which did not specifically refer to the FOIA and correspondence with Joshua seeking to resolve this issue without Court intervention. 3. Joshua first sent requests for information on Joshua's counsel's letterhead signed by Joy Springer. Those requests did not mention the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. LRSD responded that the District,.would treat those requests as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and respond to them accordingly. Joshua then requested generally the same information in a request made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act on the personal stationary of Ms. Springer. On information and belief, Joshua vo 1 ,:;0 1 ,:;vv,:; J.O : J4 .t'AA :\u0026gt;VJ. J'ftj ll47 t .. .lUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ~ 003 / 041 - also caused a request identical to the one submitted by Ms. Springer to be submitted by Mr. Terrence Bolden of Jacksonville, Arkansas. 3. The LRSD understood this Court's deadline of June 21, 2002 for identifying witnesses and exhibits to preclude any discovery after that date. 4. The LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c) precluding Joshua from submitting FOIA requests to the LRSD and from conducting any further discovery before the July 22, 2002 hearing. 5. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, Joshua's requests are over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its requests to the issues for the July 22, 2002 hearing. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b )(2)(i). Many of the documents requested have already been provided to Joshua (e.g., quarterly reports and academic award reports). Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). Pursuant to the Court's order of May 15, 2002, the documen~ will not be admissible at the July 22, 2002 hearing. 6. LRSD has attempted to confer 'With Joshua, but Joshua has not responded to our Jwie 26, 2002 letter seeking to resolve this issue and counsel for Joshua could not be reached by telephone on June 28, 2002. 7. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to ei:tjoin Joshua's use of the FOJA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order relieving the LRSD from its obligation to respond to the requests for infonnation attached hereto as Exhibit 1; precluding Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf: from submitting additional FOIA req~ to the LRSD; precluding Joshua from conducting any further discovery in this case until the July 22, 2002 hearing; and directing Joshua to conduct all future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of 1-'.IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK (aJ00S / 041 Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock. AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-.zUl-,i.--- B : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on June 28, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER.P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp;JONES, P.A. 42S W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rocle, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm. 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 P:IHOMlal'l!Hl\u0026gt;UMUSD 2001~FOL\\+2Ul . ....i ~ 00 4/ 041 4 \u0026lt;USClll!L ff. PMlt.Y 11'11\"\"1  AM '4. $(JTT01'f, P.A. M. 21$.EMAN. /\u0026amp;.. P \"  stw.. P'.A. A., alJl'TlY., .A =aEOE:IUCX S Ut.SEI.Y. PA, JSCAI.C. CIAVlS.JI..~ r .A. 'AMG.1 C. ~II\\.. f /'I. ntON,\u0026amp;.$ t . UGG1ft, P.A. 'Offli! DWEY ,.-,.T.S01'. l'.A Al.It. 8.. IEl'M .. SIL ,..t.. ...AI.RYW. l~.1.A. \\ . WYCUJ,f'f liflSIGT. IL, r A. 1ANES ED11'AU l'lAUJS. I .A I. NUWf MALCOM. .A. IAME,S IC Slta$0N, P.A. 1ANES N , S.\\XTOM. t .4 . ' Stu:rt1c~ USSLL Ill. , ,., :IOHALO H.. AACOfrl. r .A. IU.tAM THOM.Al, ,A.:ir1'!.' P.A. UCN.-.\u0026amp;0 0 . TAT\\.Ot. f .A. 10.SEIH I . truUT, J   , f.A. IUZAIETII KOPllll\u0026lt; f,WUAY. P.A. CKIUS\"T'Of'tfU: ~ P..A.. LAUI.A Kl!JISLtY SMITH. P,,._ 101~.T ,. :,u.a. -1'.A.. rwA.M M. c-,FptN m. , .A. \u0026gt;UCHA.%1.. S MOOU. f .A. DIAf'l'C S . MAO::E'W\", P.A. W.A.LTU \"' ,aCt.1(1. P A. r..CYI,.. A. Cl.ASS, P.A. WUJ.l\"N A. 'WAOOG\u0026amp;.1.. Jk._ \u0026gt;,..._ SCOTT J. \u0026amp;.AZ\u0026lt;ASTek. P.A. l01lC11.T O DEACK. JL f ,A. J. ~e llO\"'N. P.A. JA.HES C. BAS:P.. Ja.. r .A. .....UY A. UGKT_ r A. SCOTT H. tuaea. ,_,._ GUY AL TOH w..i,e, ........ Ptuee C. CAAJ\u0026gt;H1.. P.A. TOf\\11.t. \"  JONES. I.A. c,,-..YfO D. 'fillSOPI. I .A. IEHI.EY tf. MOOK.. f .o\\. DA.VIO M. GllAl'. P.A Via Fax No. 374-4187 Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITD LIA81LITY PARTN!l'l5HII\" www.ftid3)'rirm.co'\" 2000 RfGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITO~ llTTle ROCK. ARKAN5A51220ll,.193 TElEPHQN(; 501-318-20! I ~AX .S01-37S21'7 , .. ~s NORTH FVTRA\\.l OAIVf. SUITE 1~ FAYETTl!.Vt.l~. ARKANS.\\S 72711~'611 TELEPHON'C! 17Q..HS-201' ,A.It  T .. HS0ZHT 20 NORTH FIFTM STRC~T tLYTh~VfLLE.. ARKANSAS 12315 'l'ELeP\u0026gt;\u0026lt;Or\u0026lt;f f70.71MU8 ,.;., t70-71.2...J.Ott June 26, 2002 CAIU.A CUWMl'.I..S 3PA.ffllt0Uk. \"\u0026gt;.A.. JOlctf ~ #.l.HOlEY~ JL t ,A. JO,-,,._..,.. UJZA.BETH CONIQUO. P.A It o,aUTOtHr.A. LAWS()H, P.A. rAAW C. fOCCMAJlf'. r A, otTTV J, OEMOKT. r .A. L'l\"'NDA M. JOMMSOlf. P.A. UHBW . .SMJJ'11.J'. \"- QJFPOM W, PUJNllTT, I .A. OA.Mct. L t\u0026lt;EtalNGTOH. , .A, MAltYIN L CIALDEAS JI( .COLEHAH\"111'1rnJtfl,O,Oll', a . AUJSO'tril J. C01l)rl'WEU EU.ntt owwt JASOl'I a. lfEND\u0026amp;E\u0026gt;\u0026lt; sivce a. r,a.-ru. MICHA.EL E. S:A.\"'1f'6l' ,::ELLY MU11.Ptn\" M.CQUlEN JQSUHr.MCCAY .a.LEXAtt01.A ,.__ !fl:.AN' JAY' T. fAV.L.01. M.utTJf' 4 \"-AITEN' Re: LRSD v. PCSSO Discovery Dear John: ~006/ 041 B1CY.a\u0026gt;nr, 0~ fOSUH G. NICIIOLS 108.IT T. SIICJTH \u0026amp;YAW A.. 10,..MAW TlMOTllY C. EZEl.L ? . MlQCCt,,L. A1'()._ t:.Aa.EN $ . KALIIEllltT SAIIAH \"'- COTTO\" rf'flL,.lf' A. NONTOOMJtY C.WTEtf :S. IJGGINS At.AHG. BllYAN UHDStT MIT01AM SLO~W KJtA.y\"(-,M fltl( tDDfN(:$ fOff'N f. HlSEl.fCH ,.._ I .S. CLAfUC  WILLIAM L 1'Elta.V Wf\\,1.IAM L , .. trow. JL H.T. 1.AAZnau, P.A. JOtOf C. CHOU. P.A A..0 MCAU.tl'TTA. C:,.llb$TOPkEtt HEt.lER LITTLE ROCK TEL s01 .. n, .. n,. FAX Stt-1:SJU t1t1t~f.~.t11 I am writing in an effort to resolve our dispute concerning your use of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to conduct discovery in this case. We received several requests for infonnation from your office on your letterhead signed by Joy Springer. We responded that we would treat those requests as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide the requested information in the time and manner set forth in those rules. We have now received a request from Ms. Springer on her personal stationery seeking all the previously requesled information and more pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. l feel strongly that the Freedom oflnfonnation Act should not be used to circumvent Federal Court procedures or to unduly burden the Little Rock School District as it works to prepare for the July hearing in this case. In order to resolve our dispute and avoid our having to seek relief from Judge Ray or Judge Wilson, I will agree to treat the FOI requests we received from Ms. Springer this afternoon as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide a response accordingly. Please let me know if this proposed resolution is acceptable to you. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc: Dr. Ken James PlAINTIFF1S EXHIBIT 1 .1.-lUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK (aJ007 / 041 Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Sch~ Little Rock School District 810 West Marlcham June 26, 2002 RtcEJ\\IE!) JUN 28 2DDl SUPT'S OFFICE little RDcl; AR 72201 Deac Dr. lames; This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfonnation Act. Would you please provide for review, mspection aod copying the follo~og information: l) all files maintained by pr~OU$ superintendents in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of the District's schools for each of the last fi,,e years; 2002; 2) the minute$ and agendas of the District's compliance committee meetings since January, 3) all disaggregated data results of all school climate sutveys administered during 1hc .last iive years;  . 4) aJl academic award reports for each secondary school for each of the last :five years; years; 5) all senior rank lists by race and gender for each high school for each oft he last three 6} all school semces quarterly reports for each of the last five years; 7) all program evaluations prepared by 1he divisions of administrative services. school services and instruction for each of the last tive years; 8) all master schedule audits for each of the last five years; 9) the current swnmer school enrollment by race and gender; and 10) all minutes and agendas of the Activities Ad\\lfsory Board. May I r~iewthis information by 10:001un. on Monday, July 1., 2002. Thankyou. Sincerely, Terrence Bolden P.O. Box 5980 1acksom,lle, AR. 72076 501-985-4846 vu , .ao , ,.vv .. ..1.0 : .\u0026gt;o rAA ;iu-1. J/0 ;.: ,1 4 1 flUVAY .t::LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK .JU'l .26.2002 1006Frl JCttl W 1-JALKER P ~ Dr. T. Kemietb.James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School Disttict 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 DearDr-.J~: FROM THE D,E SK OF JOY C Sl\"RINGER June 26, 2002 ~008/ 041 f\".1 This request is pursururt to the .Arlcamas ~ ofIDfvmration. Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and copying 1he following mfor:mation;- I) all files maintained by previous superixrtendem:s in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of the District's .schools foe each of the last five years; 2) the minutes and age:adas of th~ District's compliance committee meetiPgs since Jamiary. 2002; 3) all di~egated ~ results of all school climate surveys adro:rnistcred dutingthe last nveyears; 4) all .academic a.'W\u0026amp;rl reports for each semndary school for each of the last :five S) all senior Imlk lists by race and gender for each high school for each of tlie w:t three years: 6) all school services quarterly reports for each of the last five years; 7) all program evalcations prepared by the dMsiOJlS of administtati.ve services, school services and insuuc.tkm for- osch of the last five years;  8) all master scbedule andm for eai:h of'the last 1ive years; 9) the cmrent summer sclmol enrollmeDt by race and gender, and IO) an mimrtes and agendas of the Activities .Advisory Beard. 1n ~rdance with the Freedom oflnformation Ad:., this infurroarltJn should be provided within tweuty.four bours. Smee I will be out of town OQ tomorrow :fbr the remainder oftbe week, I am requesting that the itlformanon be made available on Monday moroing at 11:00 a..m. 06/26/02 WED 14:01 (T.VR.\\ :'-10 9~~1 I vv , .o, -vv4 iu . Jo r.a.,. aui JIO ~i4t ~KlVAY tU\u0026gt;.IO::V~t \u0026amp; CLAJ\u0026lt;K JU'i.25,2002 10:06AM .JOI-Ii_ W W~ER p R Thank you fur ~our attention to tlJis request. , ~ ~ ~c.s~ 22osruce Lit11e ~ck., .AR 72202 Telephone- 501-372-3423 Fax - 501-374-4187 N0.463 ~009/ 041 P.2 06/26/02 WEI) 14:01 ITXIRX NO 9lll.1 I lltU\u0026lt;:ltt.L IL , lt.ii\u0026gt;A Y ('n-\") 'IIIL\\.l\"M II- Jll!'Tf\u0026gt;)I. \u0026gt;_,._ ano)I ,._ J!JJDWI. JL. , _,._ J0l.fl..ltU.. ,_..._ 1i-lll'TitY.P,A. Ola\u0026amp;. UUZJ.'I'. P.A. \u0026gt;CA\u0026amp;IL DAYI.S.JL. P.A. JAMSI' C. a,\u0026gt;.a\u0026amp;. JL. P.A. TIIONAS P. Llt042ff. \u0026gt;.,._ JOH)l l\u0026gt;~P- wnox. ,_,__ PAUl.JLIIDIIL\\llm, P.A. u.a\u0026amp;T W .  UBS.. P.A. A wY'CQ.JPP'HISBJ!T. IJII.. Jl'.A. JAIUSS mw UD IL\\MJS. , .A. J . J1Ut.Lff M\"-lCOM. f' -1\\, JAMA .N. SIMPS0\\11. t .A. 1\"\"'1:$N. S,UITO!f. P.A-J. $llltlll~ ~l!U- Ill., . .._ DOMAl.D 11. JIACOJt. t.A.. WD.1.1.AN f'BOMAJ BA.XTO. P.A.. RJ:CILU.D D. TATI.Ol.. P.A. ,osusa. RUUT.JLr.A. EUL\\.BETH ROBBoH M'UUAY. P.A. OINSTOJ'KD 101J.:u. f .A. 1.AOMNDSUTSMITILP.A. IIONkt i. SIIAin. ;_,._ WILUAMM. CaJRIIIJIJ.P.A. lGCJ:IAD. 3 . MOOU. I .A. DLUE 1. WA.CEEY~ IJ,,.. WAI.JDN.oa.m.,.A. ltE'Y!lfA.CJlASS.P.A. WJLUAN A. WA,OOU,L Jk.. t.A, $(Ott J. \\..\u0026amp;l\u0026lt;~t ..... JOJU.T 11. JEAQI. la.. P.A. J. LU aao-. \u0026gt;-4- JAMU C. IA\u0026amp;'.D. JL. P.A. Klll.Y A.. UOlff. ? . A.. scorr a. TUca.\u0026amp;. , .A. GUY ALTON' WAD.I!. ,,.A.. Pl.la C. G,UUHG\u0026amp;.. I.A. i0HlA. JI. \u0026gt;ONE.a. JA PAYJDD, \"'1U'Ofl,P.A. 181J'JU!Y K. HO(\\U. P.A. DAVIII N. CkAJ'. t.A. Ms. Joy Springer John W_ Walker, PA_ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 VIA U.S. MAIL AND FAX: RE: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Ms. Springer: .t-K.lVAY J:;LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORHEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ..w Jr1dayllrm_eom 2000 REGIONS CENTER oo WEST CAPITOL LITTLE; ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501.378-2011 FAX $01-376-2147 :7?$ NOJltTH FlJTJtAU ORf\"'E'. avne 10, ,,.~!TTfllli.U:, AJll(AHSAS 7VOMl11 TEU!.JtOlt( fMd-z01t ,u Jt-H$-2,.7 208 KORTH JIJTM STIIUT 15LY'fttEY1\\.L,. A~AM$~$ 7ZS1$ Te~EPHONe ett-1e2-20H ,AJ\u0026lt; t7~712-z,1 June 24, 2002 374-4187 CA.Jtl.A GUJfJG:U $PADtOUll.7..A.. JORN C. n:Jl'DUY  JL. p .A. l0-IIJZAIIITII COlllC:UO. P.A. L QlIST0PHU UW$0N. P.A. n.u, C. WCI.MAN, P.A. B~ l . DMOkY, I .A. L.~J\u0026gt;A M. JOJDiSO)t. P.A. IAMQ 'W. $MrTJI', r-4- CUfPOltb W. N.IJNU.ff, f'.A.. DANIELL Jl'DaJHGTON. P..A. NAllYIML. \u0026lt;:1111.l\u0026gt;AS C.. COLEMAN WESnllOOE, It. AU.Jnt,. CO~L LUNM.OWEI$ JAS'Ot49..~ aauaa.notrE.,.L MIC'llAIU. a. ~IY' lt!U. Y MllllPKY NCQIIUN J0$~\u0026gt;17. HCMY A~OtA A- ltkAN U.Y t. TVl..Oll MAaTIN A. ~'fN'  ~010/ 041 BAYAJIW. DUU JO$Zl'IIG. N1Cli01.S IO\u0026amp;D.TT- SMlft Y A)t A, OOIINI TJMOTRYC.= \"[. MICJIZll.Z ATOR LU.El L JIAUIEll :SAllAJf N, C'OTTOJII nttur   H01'f7!iOMIJlT lll!fflf$.IUGCI?\u0026lt;$ ALAMa. aavAN LDfl\u0026gt;SEY MITCHAM Jt,.OAM DAYY....,. M. U\u0026gt;Df)HH IOIIN F. PESEIUCR orc;OV\"'ID. a.s.cuu: ..-u.J.lAlC L TEllY TU.l.JAJIII t.. 1' A.TYO'M, JW... H.Y. UJIZELEJl.. P.A. 10KIW C. EOfOI.5. P.A . A.11.MCAJ.Llnn JOHii C. ,CNOL..{V_ Jlt. Lm~E ococ TELSH~7~ FAX 511244SS41 fflldl9yOfc.-nt This letter concerns your requests for information submitted June 11 and 12, 2002. We consider these to be informal requests for discovery and have advised the District work to prepare responses within thirty days of your request. We hope you understand that preparation of responses to your requests for information can be time conswning. Giving District personnel thirty days to respond will hopefully ensure that they are not forced to neglect important District priorities. We appreciate your cooperation in this regard With regard to your request for information dated June 11, 2002 to Dr. Hurley, we are concerned that this request relates to the lawsuit .filed by Mr. Walker on behalf of Jim Mosby. It would be inappropriate for the Joshua Interveners to use their monitoring role in this case to assist individual District employees in litigation against the District. Moreover. the Joshua Intcrveners should support the District's effort to provide a certified principal for the students at Southwest Middle School, an overwhelmillgly Aftican-American school. Due to this concern, we have advised Dr. Hurley not to respond to the request until we have had an opportunity to discuss this with you. Ms. Joy Springer June 24, 2002 Page2 Please give me a call at your convenience to discuss this request. Sincerely, ~t~ Jolm C. Fendley, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James (by fax and mail) ------ ---- ~011/ 041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK He'I.So\u0026amp;El. K. F'lUlAY (1911.ltt4)  U~ H. SUTTON, P.A. ON N. ElS\u0026amp;MAli. ,._ P.A. D. ULL.P.A. ES A. DIJTTI.Y. P,A. fJU;OEIJCk f , Uu.t.\u0026amp;Y. r .A, OSCAaE. DAYlS. JL. P.A. JAMts e. Cl.ANt. Jll,. , .A. Til0M.S p, I.ICICP:TT. t .A. JOHN DE\"WEY WATS:OH, f.A,. , AW.. ... BDlll,Uf l1L , ..A. LA.RJt.Y W. a\\11.1tJ, P.A. ,._ '\"OUJFFll158ET. Ja., P.A. JANES EDWAID HAU.11. P.A. J. P.HIUJP MALCOM. P.A.. JAMES N. 5,UIIPSON. P.A JAM~ M. SAXTON. P.A. J, Sh!PW!G JWSSEll. UI, P.A. PO)rr,IAU) H. !ltctn't, P.A. WII.L.lAM TMOMAS BAXTER. P.A. ltlCM.A'l.t'I D. T1'Yt.O-.. 1.A.. J0.11'\u0026gt;4 II. nu-ST. Jll. P.A. EU:t-t-ATll llODDlill '4UU.AY. P,A, CHJJ!TOPHEl mUE1. I.A.. L..Wb HENlUY SWJ'TJL P.A. at08E.AT S. ZHAJ\"Ea. '-' WJIJ.IAM M. CJUm)l lll , .A. M\u0026amp;CHAll S. ll,IOOR'- F,A, l\u0026gt;LtJG: I. \u0026gt;U.CX.EV .. I.A. WALTUM. 851. JU, P.A. \"'VIN A, CA.US, P.A. Wll.l.lAW A. \\VAl)P,J!U. JI.., P./\\. SCOTT I. l..t.HCAl?P, P.A. I.OBllT B. UA(K. JI- P. A.. 1. LEE aaoww. , .,._ IANES C. Billi. 11.. P.A. MAU.YA.. UGNT, P,ASCOTT H. ruao.. p .A. mrY At.'TONWAll'E. f .A.. PJ.lct C. GARl\u0026gt;lfll.. P ,A. TlffllA P. JONU.1'. A.. OA.VID D. WILSON, P.A. J?l'FREY IL MOOll. P.A. DAVID M. GMI. I .A. FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK -.noRNEVS -.T t.AW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frloay11rm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 Wl!ST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201353 TELEPHONE S01-376-2011 YAX 5013752147 '425 NORTH FVTRALl 0ilUVE, SUITE fH F'-YeTTev,~ce. Alll(A~SAS 1210311 T.ELEPHONE \"'71-,\u0026amp;05'-2011 F,.X 1t-t9'3-z,a7 201 NORTH FIF'TM STR,~tT ILYTHfVll,,1.E. A,t.UNSAS 72.215 TELEPHONE 870-TU-2891 FAX 17G-74!12'-1tHI June 24, 2002 [] Copy and return withP.O.T. [ J Return P.O.T. only TELECOPY TO: Joy Springer Dr. Ken James 374-4187 447-1159 FROM: John C. Fendley, Jr. MESSAGE: See the following re: LRSD vs. PCSSD. C.UA Cl/llllEU SPAl1'llOOR. P.A. JOHtl,:. PB)rlOLrr. 111... I .A. \u0026gt;OIIAl/N EUZADeTII (01'1Cco. r .A, Jl. CJWSTOPJfEI. l.A.W$0N, !'.A.. PlWf C. IOCICNAM, P.A. B~T?V J. Ou,tOltT. 1,A, L YNl)A M. )OIO'!ON, t . A. JAJWIISS 'W. SMITH. P.A. CUlpO-.i,, W, Pl.~. P.A. DAllliL 'I,. JU:JJUIIGT01', t .A. .MAAYIN L eNI.LDfflf IC. COUMAW wesn,ac\u0026gt;OI(.. ,,.. All.1!0lf l . CQl.\\l'N!U,, EU.E\u0026gt;I ... 0\\1121'$ 1AJON a. 12Nt\u0026gt;anl llt.UCE. B. Tll)W!J,,,L. MICIWtl. \"- ltAll\u0026gt;lt'f Ull Y NU11PMY MCQUUll JOUIK I . WCJC.AY ALUANDLA A. 11aJI.H JAT T. TAYLOR MARnN A. X..U:T.sN TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET _3_. IF YOU DO NOT RECENE ALL TIIE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 376-2011 TRANSMITTING FROM: (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFF1CE USE ONLY: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - (501) 376-2147 AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - (501) 376-6369 LI23-0-90 CLIENT/MATIER# 141012/ 041 8lY AH W. DUD:: JOSEPH G. NJCROU aoanT T. SMITH kY-'\\)f A., eOWMA.Jri TIMOTHY C. EULi. T. MJCHELU.-.TOk KAJ.SJrf s. HALBD.J' SAIWI M, COTTO,, t-HlUt a. ~OJlilC~\"'r WS1EH !. .RJGGl\u0026gt;ll Al.AH G. AYAW 1..n'DiEV NrTCH.AM ~LO~ 'CRA\"YYAM M. i:mln:IC!:. JOHN f . PEISEJUCH OTCO...,.at. 'B.I. ~ WU,.UAM L T!JtKY WfUlA.M L FATTON, JL H.1, ~UIIII\u0026lt;. P.A. ,OJI)\u0026lt; C. tel10LS. P Jo. A.I). MC,.1.1.lfflk .JOHN C. FENCL.I!\\' , .IA:. LITTLE 11.0CK T\u0026amp;l. H1ITilll21 ,AX S1\u0026gt;1 -liUNt1 fe.ifley0fc.r,et CONFfDOfflAIJT)' NOTE: TM inf-01;0,,;,, lilisfoulJrtll,,_llrlJ/ iJ /~1-,pri\"\"ttei and cOftfld-'ol lwftJfflt11io,, f,i1111dld \"'\" for lilw ,,., q,,.. ldMd\"I o, .,,n,y ~ HfJW. J/!Mrmdtraf llti.s ma:rtq;r is mw ,~ ~d ripienJ. 10\" are trerd,y ,rQlijlo:J rlt4r o,u, d(IJetn(notlon, Wtrilnuioo or a,,_y qf lht: tnuumiltal U strialy proltlblted. Jf)'O't ,....;,,ethi, uruuflliJm/ ;,,,,..,, pJns, i1010\u0026lt;1Potdy-i/J,\"' f1i, 1d\u0026lt;plto,,c. .,,_,~.,,, 1J.e.,;~ VMSlltitlal to..: o\u0026lt; 1N:ebtN,11ddrcs..., Iii Uolu::dSUUc Po,10/ Suvicc. 71,anJc you. F:~\\10IIMS\\l'AXll'alef\\:prioi.,..,;.,.....,., .flUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 06/24/02 MON 11:53 FAX 3432 ********SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS *** MULTI TX/RX REPORT *** ****************************** T.l/RX NO INCOMPLETE TX/RX TRANSACTION OK (1) 93744187 ERROR MP~CNF.J.. tC. PllbA ( ,1,n1!11JI w,v; ..... ,L iunu . t-.A. DVIIOM M. C,JJIIIIJt JL 7.A. JCIUU. Ul!U..,,A. J11,,-r.,.  . U\\ffTAY. r A Clli:.Klc;:\u0026amp; J , v,:sa: ~Y. I .A. tnCAt! tJAWIJ. JI. . I A.. J\"\"f-~ C Q , fltilll\u0026lt;., , . r.A. 'l'rt(I~--$ \"  J..#JC)l!T:. .A. JOUM Dli\" WAnnw. ,.,.. PAV\\. If. UCtnlA.M m f.A. L4JUI.TW,ll\\l~P.\\.. A. w,a~lfP' Jrttt.t9E ', ,n., ,-. Jri . JAllfU CnW,ULD H!'ll:a,s, ~-\"  J. r,ow, MALCOM, \" \"  J,a.MC., ~ - :CMPJn)II, , ,.\\.. JAMU W. !;.if(IW, l'.A. J. $HUHP.R\" ldJ.ilr.J I., ut, .. ,A, OON.\\LO '9, a..OON. .,\\. \"1LU)\u0026amp; f.t(JM~ (I\\J:'f'e., r.,\\. 1.u:uaatt b . 1'11Vt.(U , , .-. JOJl'J,t JJ. ltlJM$'1', Jt, ,  A. (2) 94471159 OU~Vltnl ,_Oita! MUM.\\Y, P.A. ClllU~TOntUl.ll0J..D.i I .A. UlJM Ut1Ni1.n .s.MJTN. t .A. KOn11T 1, iMfEll. P,._ 91fll.UAM N, .C:._,fJlN JU. f ,A, MtCIIA.1. $. -.uUK.. P.A. OfANE s. wu;gy. P.A. 1114.l,,~N. lflltLut. r.A. U:YIJI I\\. :M!li, P.A WU.1..1AM A,. WAeDE'U., Ja... f'.A. S:C'O't'f I. C..ftflf'CUTEt., l',A. llOHIL1 I . lf.\u0026amp;OI. IL. P.A. I . Lt l\"JW7f. , .A. JAMA.ti ~  ._KU. JR., P  Jt,tt,kll'\"I  UC\":MT, P. 11,. u:aTT N. TIJQCJ'.a, ..... c:vv t.TON w\"ot. t .A. PD.ICF.. r.. ~DMF.X. ,  TOWIA ' . iowr;S,, )' A., l\u0026gt;AVlf1 r,, WU..fON, I\"  ltfi\"-tY n. 114(\u0026gt;(,1,.._ V.I\\. \"'\"~u, M. C\" r A , FRIDAY ELDl1EDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT I./IW A LIMITEll llABILITY P\"lliNERSHIP www.Wdarfirm.cofft 200a fttGlONS t:l:NTel't ,oo WliST CAPITOl Llr(LE ROCK. ARKAIISA$ 7:!201-393 TELEPHONE 5D1-J75-Z011 rA'/C. So1.376-2147 ~a.\u0026amp; NoltTH F\\IT1'AU C,AlVE. SUITli 111.S ,-..,fTTfv1u.c . ..,,_KA.NISA$ 1no3-   11 T!I e:P'4DNE OHt,S-2011 'AX 470.tDS..atd 291 -TH Flf'TH STllET 91.YNeVILLE, ARKANSAS. 72315 T'l,,tt\"'10NC 10-11.JJHD ,uro-nz.z.,, June 24. 2002 [ J Copy and return with P.O.T. [] RetumP.O.T. only TELECOP.Y TO: Joy Springer Dr. Ken James 374-4187 447-1159 FROM: John C. Fendley, Jr. MESSAGE: See the following re:~ vs. PCSSD. !:AM.A C\\INWl!U IMIIINOII\u0026amp;, P,A, JUffff C. fl:.\"l'IOLCi  .t'- P.A. .OMAN CUZ. ... L'TII CUNllil.lO, , ,A, J.. QfllSTOfREJl V.Wi()fl( , P. A. ~ow, C IIICCMAN. P.A. ~ltTTf J. OatOltl'. , ,,._ l,Y?IUIII 'l. JUJINSON. f.A. JI\\MU,  - n1n1L t ,h. (..\"\\,fPl\"IJa.o W. PLW)tl1T. I.A. \\\u0026gt;Af'Uli:t.. L HEJJUfilCSTON. 1.A. NhlLVIN L.. CNIUJa.$ \" C:01.D\u0026lt;A-~ WESTOIOO\u0026gt;:. JL MJ.J,SON J. COUWIU t~UNM. OWE\u0026gt;IS \"'\"'\" a. IW/l)al)I IUJCE: I . 'TtOWlJ.I, MtcHA.EL t. kAPEY 1'.ELLY MU\"INY MD)IJF.fhit JOSEftU. Ma.AV A.I.Z);.-.ND\u0026amp;A. A.. IFAA N JAYT. T.AYU,. MAkTl!II A . ..::,1,sT,.-,I TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET_3_. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE AIL THE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 376-2011 TRANSMITTlNG .FROM: (PLEASE CIR.CLE ONE) AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200- (501) 376-2147 AUTOMATIC FAX RAPlCOM 200 - (501} 376-6369 141013/ 041 Olll'Aflf ft, CIUltl,; J('tC~ \u0026amp;:., flllt~'\"IWLS IIIOUtltt Y. 5KITII kfAtt A. ,uwM.Ut TIMQ\"fllV L'. e:i.eu .. T. lliNC:ucu.u ATOii!. K.tketf :.. lfALOl!A.T t\u0026amp;IA'1 M, l))nUN r1nur ,. MOl'CTUOM[J.Y ~'ff7fl'Clt 4, Rlt.G1HS AlAHd. YAN 1.INNUT MJTCMAM S\\.OAM IUl.l'YTA.M-. ~oon,rr.s JOKII r. '\"JlCCU atr.s..a::na. p,J. t:\\.AU. WIIJ.'AM L TEU.T WIU.IAM L fATT'ON. JIL ILT. wUZ.1!1.llt;, M . 101\\H C. El:jfOU.. P.A. ~.l'. MCA .. ~Uf~ll. JOHN C, tE1'LC,t..(.'r, '\" LITTLE oclt Te'L H1a;iJOJ:q~ FA-~HJ44-$:J41 ........ ,a,., . ., .. FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 141014/ 041 JllN. 24.2002 4!~f't1 JPBN'1.W~ Sill. WN CHILD6 Ms. Sadie.Mitebell J\"OnN 1,4 WAI...J\u0026lt;E:R p ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Affl:\u0026gt;.aNSY Atr LAvr 17.231'\\acwJwA.Y .l.mI.Z.Rocg;,ARXANSAS 72206 T~Ni (Slll) S7+-37oS PAX (501) 874-4187 Associate Supcrixltcadcnt for Scbool Services I.itde .Reck Sdlool Distria 810WcstMmbam Lin1e Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: Would you please provide the following imo.tmation: N0,44S (:J. W:11;\"\"\"_,l) All disaggregated data results ot\"all school c:liinate surveys adrninist~ d~g the 2001-.2002 school year; p I'\"; .. r..:,.,.J 2) All a.c.ademic awards reporu for eac:h secondary school f.or cac:h.oftbc wt three years; and pv-: ,,_~ f'\"' I 3) All scmor raQk lists by race and gaJder for each high school for each of the last three~. I plan to be in your buiJding on Wednesday. I will drop 1'J,' your office on this dKtc to eheck tbc status oftms mformatioa. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ P .2 JOHN W. W'.ALKP Sl!Alll'N C!DI.DS Dr. T. Kenneth James Superiuteodem of Schools Little R.oc:k. School Distrlct 81 O West Markham Little Rack, AB. 72201 Dear Dr. James: JOBN W. WALKER, P.A. Anomr ATLA.W l 723 BICWJW.\u0026amp;r !.muc ~ ~ 72206 TD.BPilon (601) 37~5\u0026amp;  FAX (SO~ 81H187 Via Facsimile )W1e 24, 2002 Would you please provide for review, inspedion and copyine each of the files maintmd by pf\"e\\liogs supeimtendents .in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of~ Distric:' s sc3iools. I will be looking for. tlffiODg other thiDgs, all }'are:nt complamts, individual or group, petitions, letters or atherwi,c, for each ottbe last three years. r 11/0llld appreciate }.(s. Griffin mald.ng these files a.vailable on Wedfles\u0026lt;hy morning arou:nd 10:00 a.m. Th8llk you for your attem:ion to this request. JCS/ P.S_- f have also pxeriiously req11ested that yau provide the mi.mites ml agendas of the eompllance committee meetings since Januazy, 2002. Your cooperation. in al!o makmg these iteins available 011 Wednesdaymommg is appreciaud. 141015 / 0 41 JOHN W. WAI.ltER SR.t\\WN CHILDS Dr. Kenneth James Supermtendent of Schools Liale Rocle School District 810 West Mark.ham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. James: l-'.IUVAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK JOHN W. WALKER., P.A. A~AxLAw 1723 B!0.ADWAY I.rm.! RDCX. .AIXANaAS 'i'2206 Tw:mom: (501) 874-8758 FAX (501) 374-418'7 June 21, 2002 [4]016 / 041 OF COUNSEL ROBEl1'1' Md!ENXY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HDDmaN RQAD um.z Boa.~ '72210 l'IIO.N11: (SOl) 372-SCS  F.Al(50l) ~ ~ mthemy~11.~ Please provide by return facsimile a copy of the petition by teachers in support of their choice for principal at Central Hi2b School Thank you. JCS/cac - --- RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2002 SUPT'S Orfh.,c J'OHNW. WAI.EE!t sHAWNCBILDS Dr. T.KezmethJames Superiute.D~ af~ols Little ltock School District 810 WestMmxbam Little Rock, All 72:201 De:arDr. James: FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AmiNB!Arrl.B 1723 BllOAlJWAY Lfm.El\\oQi ~ 72206 Tl!LmlONS (SO'Jj S7 4-3'1S8 'FAX (501) 374--4187 Via Facsimile June~ 2002 Would you please provide to me the agendas and .mi.mtt2s Qf the compliance team ::meetings since 1ammy, 20oz to present. Thank you for your CQoperation. ~i.e .. __ . - \"'lf!.springer~ Ou Beba!f of JQSbua JCS/ @017/ 041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 86/11/2002 12:10 5013242090 .ru-1. 11.2002 10;~ JOli'f W ~ P Fl Dr. FJclmrd Hurley ~rof\u0026amp;manRt~ Lit:t.te RQck SdiooI District 810WestM.arldlam Little Rock, AR. 72201 . Dear Dr. Hurley: JOBN W. WAIXER., P.A. .M'l'ORNiYMLA.W 1723 B1IOAJ\u0026gt;\"7A!' I.mu :aoa. ABIW\u0026amp;S 12.206 ~ ~1) 874-8158 Fil (501) 874-418'1 Juue 11, 2002 14)018/ 041 PAGE 01 I m11 writing to request that you proYide to me tbe names all Distr:ict employees who hold the position of Associate Superirrteodem, ~ Supmm~ Principal. Assistant PrineiJ\u0026gt;Slt Oircctoi, Coordluator aDd Supervisor ittclucfmg their educational baclcgroand and respective certifications. Your aneuiion to thi$ tequest is ap~ r;;~ 1oy C. Springer On Behalf of Josb\\ia ]CS! 06/05/2002 16:43 501-324-2213 JOHN W. WALKER SRAWN QDLDS Ms. Sadie Mitchell l-\".IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK SCHJOL SERVICES JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AlToRNEY A:r LAW 1723 BROADWAY Llnu: ROCX. ARXANsAs 72206 TuU:rHOi-r\u0026amp;(501)27+37S8 FAX {501) 374-4.187 Via Facsimile May 31, 2002 Associate Superintendent for School SCNices Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: ~0191041 PAGE: 0.::/ '. : Ot'CO!.i:-:;;~~ ROBERT McHENlI~: :: ... OONNAJ. M~Jit::-!l  8210 Hl!l\u0026lt;DERS()S ;..:;,:.: Llrn.E Roc1'; Altl\u0026lt;A\u0026gt;I!;,\\$ 7:.::.: ! PHO!\u0026lt;: (SOl) ~2-~A:lS  FAX (Ml) 372-:\u0026lt;~'. . FM.t.ii.: mchcnnd@.1'\u0026lt;0;, .~,- Would you please provide the following information to me at our meeting on June 15, 2002: l) the number ofSllldents enrolled by rac.e and gender in summer school for the current school year; 2) the elementary sites for summer school; 3) the secondary sites for summer school including middle scltool; 4) the number of students enrolled by race and gendc:r in summer ~bool fur each of the past three years: (98-99; 99-00; and 00-01) at the elementary and secondaxy levels; 5) the subjects being over during this year s summer school at the secondary level; and 6) the subjects that were offered to students during the years 1998 through 2001 at the secondary level. Would you also please identify the year round schools? Pio.ally. would you please advise whether there are discussions regarding the elimination ofEnglis.h and Math io summer school. I loo.le forward to our meeting. JWW~s 06/ 05/02 WED 16:57 fTl'./Rl NO 8636) VU / .:.0 1 .:.vv.:. .LO: JII .l\"JU. ;)UJ. JI O ~J.4 ( !-\".IUVAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0201041 11/17/95 14:52 ~IGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026amp; JENNINGS - l'O.l~ t'WVWb A~~:0-94 TU 15:45 US .DISTRICT CLERK FAX HO. l50187Z4612 P, 02 IN TU~ A'1'11 DIS'r!tlC'l' C0~.3.fYR.,  DS'J.'Dtf S'l'Jt?C'l OP .uXAH .ttit~~RkANSM JONUIOIO DIVISION AUG 3 O l994 I ~ PLADl'rtl\"t DBFUDANTS HPPMKPPI MfR OBPIB In tbi action broqht p\\lr~nt to 63 u.s.c. 5 lill, th Defendant have eou;ht a protaoti~o order (docket entry 3) attornay-olient. cowaunicationa batvn the Dafandantt and t.hai~ levyr aftd voul4 protect at.t.orny work prod\\lct troa cUscloure. The latter vo11ld inolud lawyer to lavyu r;,o-unioa.t1ona Dade for th pvpoae of p~epariq and dehndinl the intant litigation. Plaintiff ateadtatly. reita t!l entry ot uch a protective order, pointing to th ArQna .rr1edo11 o~ Intonation Ao~, Ar~- Code Ann. S a5-1,-101 at; mn- (Supp, 1H3), ~ Defendant:' ~atu H tnte of  publia 1ntit\\ltion, ancl t.ha t'aot that th Defend.ant b\u0026amp;ve INlan aua4 1A their official vall a inlivid\\lal ca~o1t1aa, and body of Arlcana~ c law asdret1inw th ron ~nd tha ubject ot Detendan~' p\u0026amp;-opoed order~ l : PLAINTIFF'S i EXHJBIT ,f 2 i .1.-.IUVAY l::LV.l{.t:;V~l:: \u0026amp; (;LAf\u0026lt;K 11/1?/95 14:52 AL'G-30-94 TUE JS:46 ~IGHT, \"LINDSEY, g, Je-a-m-GS U S [STRICT CLERK l t-0. 134 P003-1306 1 FAX HO, 15019724612 It :tni~ially, it ~~ N detU'Jlina4 which rul .. ot law the co~a:t -ho~l4 apply, . ~1 ~, \"oup~ in 14rl Di~iliJt ~o~ by  to1\"JDr stat un1veraity preidant ovor hia I f   traatment by the Board of ~uea of ~id inatitution, b tor ! rm ot rights protected ~Y tlle 1av1 nd contitut1on of th vnited state,. pur1uant ta 42 u.s,c. I 1113, f84eral law control queetion ot priv1la;e. l91Jio Y, Pqvall. 773 P.ad 191, 11, (8th Cir, HH), 99rt. denied, 6715 U,S, 111' (U86); XQY,ngblqpd y. bm, 112 1.R,P, J43 (C,D, C.l. 1985). 'l'Jlta i tn even ~hr  pendnt or euppl...ntal jvied1otion o\u0026gt;.ai.a 11 jolne4 vith  fe4aral c1u. BlntD Y, ui,n 1eaart11 Mea1ttl, 1,1 ,.a.D. 115 (S.n. %ova 1t92). Work product protection 41varaity oaae, lt0:0lr1i Y, Chiqapp  B,I, TJ:DDIPe SP 1aa F.~.D. 1$5 (B.D. Xn4. 1Pt1). 'l'he attorney-client privil~ i  an incliapenllbl tool of juatioa, and ia tro\\lftded in the tederal co,mon lw. lb ori9inll go back vell before th 1100' B4l1nt tvn1r1, Inc. . . Y, IA@Eisan All UI.QeiaSJ.on, 320 ,,ad ,1, (7th c1r. 1163). '?he benefits o~ tbe pr1v1199e, both to Cha adatniatrat1on or jutic and to the attornrcU.n~ r1t1onahip, are o abundant  to neacl no reoit:a.tion br. it 1 theretoz- held that the J10tion i GMN'l'ID  to thoH eoaaa\\U\\ioation bat\"'n attorney and glient thac . oomo under tha attornayclient 2 ta] 021/041 P.03 '  vv , .ao , ,;.vv.:. J.O ; 'i U riu.. ;:\u0026gt;UJ. JI o -' 1 4\"/ l'lUVAY .cLVKEDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 11/lF 14:!;\u0026gt;.S Wl-\u0026lt;1bHI, L.!~T .s. JCNl'HN!;;\u0026lt;:;\u0026gt; NV, .l,..;\u0026gt;\"f . 30-94 TUE 15:48 US DISTRICT Cl.RK FAX 15019724812 wvUCJ a .. llri,ll;d..JH;.IS;U..X.....J~.1.DQIILJ~~.llb....AU.~., 17 r.a.o. ,st (D.c. 111. 1111). Tha otion 1 aleo GRANT.D  to _into;-ation, letter , aorenda, andth lite .generated 3ttoral-Y work pro~~ot. HiQWQ Ye %A:il9', lat U.S. 4'5, 67 s.et. 285 (1147) r- .Kw i'WDIYllt !MUe AP, y, Pala -Ab tntxi 132 P.R.D. JOl (S.D. fl\u0026amp;. 1990). Th real ditticulty, ot course, con, in deterain1n9 vhther a 9l~an it tall within or vii.bout on ot th two p~otecte4 cate9or1es. cwnl are ~lld upon to u their aound j\\ldq111Cl1lt, and to conaUlt the court vhen and it bQne noo dispute ari  a in th CO\\lrae at dieoovry abo\\lt it- that r po aibly protected. 4 ~ord ut be 9ivan to the Arkan authoritie that have touched on tha issue of privilege and work prod~ct i~ the context ot ,oa requets. tn 11s:s::1n1m:t4qa y., ,S:ity pf Little lesk. 198 Ark. 219, 76i s.W.24 ,o, (1981), the Arkan suprua court held that the Arkan rula of the attorny client privile,a d14 not c:raate u eleaap~ion ~o the Ar~anaaa rree~oa of Intoraa.tlon A~t. The ca heavily ralid on ~, Plai~t1tr, C1tx A( l1YUy1ll9 y, Ym1rli, 304 Ark. 179, 801 s.W.2d 275 (1910), bld, inter alia. tb\u0026amp;t le9al aemoranda prpared tor the City tor 1i t1;at.1on purp0 Ver'\u0026amp; not exeapt trom the Arkan 7raedom ot .Intonw1t1on Act. Attorney vork product vae th~ cthc'1oee4, 3 14)022 / 041 P.04 vu, .:.0 1 .:.vv,:. .1.0 : -.v ri\\A .\u0026gt;u.1. JiO l:.l4l 1-l\u0026lt;lVA~ l::LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 11/17/95 14,53 .IJRlr,T, U~Y, '\u0026amp;. Jt:NNll'b3 NU  .l.:\u0026gt;\u0026lt;f I\"'~~ At'G-30-94 TtJE l5i47  U S DISTRICT Cl.ERi FAX NO. 1501972'4612 p, 05 - Th court fincU ls:\u0026amp;IICI and \"1t.lUP491 ar, :not ol.ndin9 on tl'ab Court Ad aven 1t th cowt apwaaa that tboy ua, tll cloiaiot)a do :,ct ro:-aclosa this Cou~ frOll 1u.1nq an . orclor proteClting etto~nY-oliant. cc1au.nicatio11a or attorney worJc produot. (See Ark. Coda AM, I a5-1t105Cb) (I), which axupte tro11 th J'Oll dooaenta vhicaa are protaote4 ttoa lliaclosura by orclr or rule ot court. ) It i 1ntoraatinv ec, note that 'Louiiana' Public Reoorda i..w poitioally exeapea attorn.~ vcr~ produc,t tro it tel'II, ~ut no~ aatorial protected by tha attorney~Uan~ privilege. S T111se y, LQui  iana tans, t SXplQ~tilpn, 805 F.S~)p. 315 (M.D. IA. 1992). tn exllllli~in; tha ~kan1ae authori~iH, it is rea411Y apparent that the tocu and concorn ot tbe ArJcaftU State oow:tu 111 with the 11hol l)ody of ArlcanH law, anct tile function of Arkanaa law in the affliz or kk.an oi~iaen Thie fade.al court, Vhil 8ituatoll within Arkanaa, \"t navei-thel.eH h11ve a it pr!aary concern ~ eftiaiant: adainitration ct jutiaa and the tair resolution of federal olai rau .. eole br the psrti litiiant in federal oourt. Th111, ~darl lav and prooedllr auet. )a appli~. 1'1' IS, 'nllRll'OU, OIU\u0026gt;DJD that 1111 papu1, ntar1al.a, and othar thinp colla~ted o~ praparect by th ,-rt1 or their ~prnbtJ.vee in anticipation tor trial, or otheni wiel\\1n th aoope of th r..ieral work product: ISoatrin, ancl all. pri vata ooamw,ications of anr kind between th d~andant anct their 0o~nl Within the ; racogni1ed bcundari ot the 141023 / 041 vv, .Q , .uu~ ~u - ~v r,u,. avi J/0 ~i4/ ~KlVAX tJ..lJ.lti,;VGt \u0026amp; Cl.AJ\u0026lt;K 11/17 /95 14: 54 WRIGHT f 1..lNLJ::c. Y, ;s.. ; ttiN 1 No:\u0026gt; r...i  .\u0026amp;.-\u0026gt;'+ . P!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 U tDISTRICT CURI FAJOIO. i50J972481Z . P,06 -~raar-oliant pd.vilo9ca, ~ h~oy ~ro~~t:od t~o. cUaooviy . \\Jy '= oppoainq pu-ty or l'elaa to any ~Ud pa.ty, ucpt by order ot thi eo~rt. 5 1410241 041 V0 / ,\u0026amp;.0 / ,\u0026amp;.VV,\u0026amp;. J.0 : 4J. rAA :\u0026gt;UJ. J\"[!j :!147 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK l-N THE CilCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARXA.N'SAS 141025/ 041 ,.,,,11-r-- '-.J'---I-STAT OF AFJ\u0026lt;ANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL No. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporati~n; DR. JAMES 0. STEPHENS, M.D., (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chainnan of the Bca:d of P.abilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board o~ Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and WAl'~DA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her ofticial capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.}; DEFENDANTS ORDER on this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions :for Protective Order filed on l:\u0026gt;~half of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William sutto~. The Attorney G~ner~l ha?ing f~lly responded and the Court being sufficiently advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT rs NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, .au- Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, E1dredge \u0026amp; PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT . 3 - -- 141026/ 041 Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habiiitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's ~iles relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. {hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habilitation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habilitation). The requests speci.tically seek \"documents, notes,: pleadings, memorandum [sic)_-, work pa:2ers, attorney work papers includinci work product _p::-epc.;:::-e.i, ge~.?::-at~d or re1ai:-ed -to any ~ark done by your fi:r:m for Habilitation Centers, Inc. [sic] or Millcreek Schools of A~kansas, Inc. in State ot Arkansas v. Habilitation centers, Inc., [sic) CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. ~ Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- ~CJ.. ( .Cl)  .:~r.::.:.c!i.cticn-i.: .this Ccu:rt was t.t1en pro~r; ,:inc! this Court retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the a!oresaid statutes. Al though the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circUJ11stances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representin9 a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction OI this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction cf the court. 2 I: 1\".Kll\u0026gt;AY .t:;U,Kt;l\u0026gt;li.t \u0026amp; l.LA.Kll. 14JU27 / U41 If the Attorney General akes a FOIA request of a totally separate entity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in -whatave:r jurisdiction lUay be perMitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc . as a party defendant.  The Attorney General has made reference to \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in its first amended complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part o~ Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court ackncwl\u0026amp;ociges -~'lat  i.: is inapp1.~pric1te for 'Che threat of pocential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this court handle all issues relating to the 111atters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the de~endant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FO!A targets are such private 3 I I I I I I I .l:'.tUJJ,H .t::U,.t\u0026lt;J:.J.)1,J:. \u0026amp; I...L,UUI. ~028/ 041 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA, The 10ere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. standing The detendants' attorneys seek a prot~ctive order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. Habilitation has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General. The law finn of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents HabilitatioTI. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. smith, 2-92 -Ark. 174, 728 S'.W.2d 515 {1.987), Arkansas Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works, Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect in~ormation otherwise subject to disclosure,1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspa~er. Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), city or Fayetteviile v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 ll)029 / 041 able to create an exemption !ram the FOIA as authorized by~~ film. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, ho--wever, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that detennination, the Court 1nust decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the l!leaning of the FOIA. 2 Habi1itation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it :may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are \"Wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 1 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. ~ Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent pa:rt, \"PUblic records means writings, recorded sounds, fil1ns, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official f~nctions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government m:: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds o~ e::9endinc;: public funds , .n  (emphasis suppliedJ 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout :srothers. Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette company v. southern state College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 s.W.2d 258 (1981), app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982); and Behab Hospital Services corp. v. Delta Hills Health System5 Agency. Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S. W. 2d 840 (1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct publ.ic funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public - purpose_ . Day subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas supreme court has declared that public funds 5 .HUVA~ ELDREDGl:: \u0026amp; Cl.ARK Ill 030/ 041 of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent, but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere re.ceipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government. Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or ror the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by lav. Neither is any more regulated -or supervised 1:han hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No govermnental authority is at Habilitation nor is any Habilitation employee located in any government office. Habilitation deter111ines the programs for the chil.dren, not the State. include only direct public tunding, not indirect support. Sebastian City Chapter ot the American Red cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 ~031/041 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private rendering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part ofits incoine is derived !romthe government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of preceden~, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the l.ine limiting the reach ot FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. Bl, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the tacts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habilitation. The intent of t.._e legislature was to expose the per.formance o:f public o:ificials and or the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public polic;y. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid progral!l is being conducted and should haYe access to all agency recoxds relating thereto, including those supplied by Habil.itation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 (OJ..!/041 -  individuals. There silllply is no legal precedent or suggestion that it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to tbe FO~A; Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the court also finds that Friday, Eldrecge \u0026amp; Clark is not subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity receiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The court believes that the Attorney General I s FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to 111aintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habilitation .should be and hereby is granted. Additionally, the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Mil'lcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark as attorney to the extent of any materials in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. -- 8 14] OJJ/ 0 4 1 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S{b) (8) Exemption The Court rurther finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. ~ film 25-19- 105 {b) (8) which expressly exempts \"docwnents ~hich .are protected trom disclosure by oraers or rul.es of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edrnark, su~ra at 191: A trial court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity o! the Court in actions pending before it and may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-105(b)(8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure ot documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court - considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The derendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the court in their joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered ~y the Court when -it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion !or SuJ1U11ary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9 ~ U;J4 / U41 Attorney General's Response to the Motion for SWDl11ary Judgment, if any~ will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion i -s denied. Conclusion . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice ot Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement o~ the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. ~ day of deJn ~ ~~~ 10 I I I; I UO / l/J / lUU l .10 : 44 .l:iU. :)Ul J 7 tS 21 4 7 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0351 0 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS!RICT COURT 1N TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AIU{ANStjJ/tt PINE BLUFF DMSION ~~iL.,;,,L::J:t:~~ ROGER HEATiiSCOTI PLAINTIFF VS. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. DEFENDANT ORDER For the fC3SOQ.S stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRAN'IED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for Februaxy 14, 2001, with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the anendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February 19, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith 11. Union Pacific Railroad Co . 878 F.Supp. J 71 (D.Co. J 995) and Vicary -v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F .Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) whlch seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F .2d 698 (8111 Cir. 1992), the plainti:ffhcre unquestionably 1w a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA\") 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. l believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. and that these n.tles are not tromped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U .S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant. a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff-with company regulations. Defendant contends that 1his order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing. modifying or dissolving [ an J injwtction'' which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under ~ PLAINTIFF'S i EXHIBIT i 4 I 287 U.S. C.  1 992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, 1 grant it: in full. --1+ IT IS SO ORDERED this/ tf/c1ay ofFebnwy, 2001 !~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT nus DOCUMENT DflcRED ON DOCKlT SHEET 1H CCMPl.lANCc WITH RULE S8 ANOIOII 7,ttJ FflCP ON /b(a, for BY ~L I ~U;J6/ U41 ..' . ,. ... . - .., , - .,; , - v ,...   V'  -. v A ,-. V V .a. V , V - -1,. \"t I rl\\.J.V/\\..1. .C.J.,J.J~UU.C. ' V.\u0026amp;...l\\llA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~UJ7/ U41 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGIIT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26{c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA \"), Ark Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- - 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith confctrcd or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause 5hown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on mattel'S relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, opprcssio~ or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions. including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; ( 4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain mattera; * *  r .tu u Al .ta.u .iu:.uur. a. ~ Lt\\.KII. There can be no doubt that Joshua is using the FOIA to conduct \"discovery.\" Accordingly, 1his Coun should exercise its power to control discovery as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1@0J8/ 04l The fact that Joshua is using the FOIA, rather than the \"'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to obtain discovery does prevent this Court from issuing a protective order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26(c). The FOIA clearly contemplates protective orders being issued to prevent the FOIA from being used to conduct discovery. Section 25-19-105(b)(8) exempts from disclosure \"documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court.\" The Arkansas Supreme Court in City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990), recognized the a trial court's authority to issue a protective order precluding a litigant's use of the FOIA. The court stated: A trial court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of the court in actions pending before it and may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under Section 25-19-105(b)(8) . .. We interpret this section as requiring the circuit court to grant exemption if another court has restricted disclosure of the documents being sought. The FOIA court must give credit to protective orders previously issued by other courts. Id. 304 Ark. at 191, 801 S.W.2d at 275. Following Edmark, both state and federal judges have issued protective orders requiring discovery be conducted pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure., rather than the FOIA. See Dr John Mangieri v_ Arkansas State University U.S.D.C. No. J-C-94-140 (August 30, 1994)(attached as Exhibit 2 to Motion) and State of Arkansas v Habi]jtation Center. Inc .. Dallas County Circuit No. 92-100 (Feb. 14, 1995)(attached as Exhibit 3 to Motion). Joshua may argue that FOIA. requests are not \"discovery\" which may be controlled pursuant to Rule 26( c ). However, Rule 26( c) has been held to apply to all forms of discovery, \\ not just the discovery devices created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Smith v, Union Pacific R, Co,, 878 F.Supp. 171 (D. Colo. 1995), the railroad. sought to require an employee. Smith, to attend a return-to-work physical pursuant to the railroad's medical rules. When Smith failed to attend, the railroad initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith. Smith had been off 2 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK taJ 039 / 0 41 work due to an on-the-job injury and had .filed a FELA suit against the railroad. Smith moved for a protective order to prevent the railroad :from requiring rum to attend the return-to-work physical. The trial court granted the motion stating: To the extent the \"back-to-work\" physical and ensuing disciplinary proceedings bear on issues relevant to this FELA action and gene.rate .facts or medical opinions that could be used as evidence against Smith, it constitutes \"discovery\" within the meaning of Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(l) and is subject to this court's authority under Rule 26(c) .. . to manage and control as justice requires. See gen~ 8 Wright, Miller \u0026amp; Marcus. Eederal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d,  2036, pp. 487-88 (1994)(the district court has complete control over the discovery process); I find justice requires entry of a protective order prolu\"biting UP from requiring Smith to attend the \"back to work\" physical at issue and from initiating disciplinary proceedings against Smith based on his failure to so attend. Id. 878 F.Supp. at 173. ~ Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Crup., 942 F.Supp. 1146, 1149 (N.D. Ohio 1996)(following Smith) and Heathscott v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., U.S.D.C. No. 5:00CV00333-WRW (Feb. 16, 200l)(following Smith and~andattached as Exhibit4to Motion). Similarly, to the extent Joshua intends to use LRSD's FOIA response in proceedings before this Court, the FOIA request constitutes discovery subject to this Court's authority under Rule 26(c). See also John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 153, 110 S.Ct. 471, 476, 107 LEd.2d 462 (1989)(\"[A] court must be mindful of this Court's observations that the FOIA was not intended to supplement or displace rules of discovery.\"); Parton v. United States DeJ\u0026gt;'t ofJustice, 727 F.2d 774, 777 (811, Cir. 1984)(\"Due to the circumstances present in this suit, it is also well to note that it is not the purpose of the [Freedom ofJnformation] Act to benefit private litigants by serving as a supplement to the rules of civil discovery.\"); Kanter v. Internal Revenue Service, 433 F.Supp. 812, 819 (N.D. Ill. 1977)(\"Accordingly, the Court finds that the Freedom of Infunnation Act may not be utilized as a means of obt.aining the release of information which would be protected from discovery in a pending or prospective enforcement proceeding.\"). This court should exercise its discretion under Rule 26(c) to prevent Joshua from using the FOIA to conduct discovery in preparation. .f or the July 2.2 , 2002 hearing in this case. The ' .. ~ parties have already exchanged their witness and exhibit lists pursuant to the Court's scheduling 3 uo 1 ,:.0 1 .:.vu,:. .1.0 : 4 0 l\".1\\4. ;\u0026gt;U.l J'/1) ;.(.l 4 7 .1-'RIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0 4 01 0 41 order. Thus, additional documents obtained by Joshua from the LRSD will not be admissible at the July 22, 2002 hearing. The breadth of the requests suggests that Joshua's pUipose is to harass the LRSD as LRSD works to prepare for the July 22, 2002 h~aring. _ The burdensome nature of the requests is compounded by the potential criminal penalty (up to 30 days in jail) which could :flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days. See Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-104. Furthermo~, simple fairness requires that Joshua and LRSD be required to play by the same rules. While Joshua has 30 days to respond to LRSD's discovery submitted pursuant to Rule 26, LRSD has only three days (at best) to respond to FOIA requests. This provides an unfair advantage to Joshua unrelated to the merits of the underlying case. Joshua should not be permitted to use the FOIA to pressure LRSD by making it impossible for LRSD to go about the business of educating children. ff the integrity of the judicial process is to be maintained, the playing field must be leveled. Joshua should be required to conduct discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL.ARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR. 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B~ 4 . FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on June 28, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. W Al.KER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Li~e Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W, Capitol. Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rocle. AR 72201 s 1410 41/041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK fAIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL CO~PORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW :lOOO t-111~ I t;UMM!:RCIAL BUILDING 4UU Wt:~ I \u0026lt;.,;APITOL AVENUE I.I I I Lt: HUt;K, AHKANSAS 72201-3493 I t:Lt:1-'HUNI:! 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE TO: Dr. Ken James 324-2146 FROM: DIRECT NUMBER MESSAGE.: Richard Roachell 224-4409 Dennis R. Hansen 682-8084 Steve Jones 375-1027 Sam Jones 376-9442 rhris Heller 370-1506 TOTAL NO . nF PZl.r.l-!~ n.1/\"'r.rmn.m Tl.l'TC! !NFOP~AT!ON SF.BET: fl DATE: June 28. 2002 TIME: ____ ____ __ .A.M./P.M. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 370-1444 Brenda ~001/041 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ____________ H_I~2=3~~---9~0'-------- CLIENT NUMBER MATTER NUMBER CONFI DENTI .ALIT'z NOXE: The information in this facsimile eransmittal is legally privileged and confidential in~onnation illeepded only or the use of the .individual or ent:..ity named above. Iz the rei,.der of this message .iB not the intended r ecipient, you u-a hereby notified chac any dissemination, distribucion or copy of the transmittal i3 3triccly prohibited- If you receive z:hig transmittal in errgr, please i mmdiacely notify us by t:elephone, a.nd return the original transmittal to us \u0026amp;t t:he above address via the United States Postal Service _ Thank you.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_30","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-06","2002-07","2002-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","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/30"],"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.\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993. the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~f~ Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based on the.information .. avajiable atjv1ay :~j{ 2092\n.J6$ AD~(:Mculaled the Equalization Funding for F'(.01102, iUbje~(J8j5'erfodicadjdsfn:ignts'. . B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 ~:, l~\\~Sies~~{ii'~~~i\nr~i\n~::i~rei~i!~:~ay3T:'2602t}He:'AQ!\n:'~!9I\nJ~t!Jc1:[:E C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 ~\n:\n~~wi~:: 2602:' distribGtioHs cS(siateEqlialiZa\"Ho\"ii E:~naihg'fBnEX'EiJJq:'{w\n'r~ rnsb~i41,262,49o NLRSr3 [ $25,470,415 i=icssd! $4.9, 138,06s 1ne allotrr,ents of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY rij'102 at M'ay 3f: 2002\"\nsubject to peri6'dic adjustments, were as follows: LRSb f $5.1,583,043 NLRS[fl $27,862,936 PCSSD .~ $53,735,000 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based On ttie information available, the ADE calcufated at May 31, 2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 tt~'!~~\n:sfiJ6,~\n:)fa!:ri.r(~Il~'~y.i\\_~}i,~'.!!fa~,At\u0026gt; E:caiciate'cJ., at r0..aY 31'{2002:Jo.FE,X QJl92\u0026amp;~Q.bjec,('Jq ' p~rii:id.i\nadjU$.tr.i\\~riW It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 a'\ntmBh'ffi'\u0026amp;Jhforitikticin avairahle,'thEi\nADE caicuiated at May 31 '. i662foFFY Q]/02, tCibjectfo periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distributions for FY 01102 at May 31, 2002, totaled $10,181,885. Aliotment 2ai_culatedfor FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments'. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks . (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 r 'd6~:~J!e:fIDt.:i211I'.:!'.[~jcGiate'd f6r FY.01/02 afMay.31, 2662, sub}ect io 'r5eri~dlc a 1ustmen s\n,:,w~re: P3Q.A::\n~,Jzi1?? .. NLRSDf '.$2\n046,540 PCSSD_TsI(()s3\n41a ., ..... . J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) K The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In September 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In March 2002, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 01 /02 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 31 , 2002, the following had been paid for FY 01 /02 LRSD - $2 ,312,194.00 NLRSD - $423,333.34 PCSSD - $944,264.16 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97 . In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2 ,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235 The buses were distributed accordingly LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 -1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92 ,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed , b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SA T-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 18 e IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 1 9 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the N LRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education 25 V COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0 Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AOE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Or. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process . The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied . The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized . On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and.approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. oR:Oulielmr~JRi2.ftB\n::e.rRansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the i5MTand lts e{~tuH9e sGmmar/ior.the rTiqrlth of May. 3 2 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed , and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance . Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans , Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representati ves in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assi stance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan in service training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000 Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training , Dr. Reynolds addressed the following 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (ie , parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend . On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented . Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, PE Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal , a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended . On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9,2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurjg , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres , Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session . The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions) . LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting . On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting . On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9 30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan . The principal's role in the process was explained . The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan . The principal's role in the process was explained. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) ii if l!f !if f:f fr t~~tri:~Jf.~~ ::i\n:~~x thlproficiehnevei 6noheotmore partsof the most recent Benchmark Ei1miriatfofr:\"UfHg '~genda _included presentations On ''The Plan-Do-Check-Act IQ 0 Stfudiof1~1 cY.~igj '.~y'foe.:.d.~tionally known spec1kerPat Davenport. ADE p\\(ffionnei'. provlde'cf '.$ff~xpianation of the MPH point program. Presentations weFe made by'{iali,\"'and uferacy Specialists: Dr, Charity Smith, Assistant oir~cior rdt /42t8tNhabiltty, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out se's'sfons w'ereheid, Tnwhich s'chool districts with h1gh scores on the MPH poiri(program ofr~fed strategies and insights into increasing student iichievement. .The .NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. 51 VIL TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SA T-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SA T-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation , and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 53 VII . TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 54 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII. D. of this report. 8. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as oJ June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as wel l as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan , staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff,. stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Dire\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1459","title":"Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-31"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1459"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0046","title":"W. W. Law - First Trailer Cut","collection_id":"ugabma_wwlaw","collection_title":"W. W. Law Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983"],"dcterms_creator":["York, Lisa","Kuhn, Cliff","Law, W. W. (Westley Wallace), 1923-2002"],"dc_date":["2002-05-30"],"dcterms_description":["Segment timestamps: 0:24 - Unknown leaders of the Civil Rights Movement : Trailer begins | 0:44 - Civil Rights in Savannah : W. W. Law was the Civil Rights leader of Savannah. |\n2:13 - W. W. Law's struggles in the community : Subjects speak on how Law was targeted for being a community leader. |2:42 - W. W. Law's agenda : W. W. Law's agenda was the betterment of the Black community."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--Georgia--Savannah","African American civic leaders--Georgia--Savannah","African American neighborhoods--Georgia--Savannah","Community-based social services--Georgia--Savannah"],"dcterms_title":["W. W. Law - First Trailer Cut"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Walter J. Brown Media Archives and Peabody Awards Collection"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/brown/wwlaw_0046/ohms"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:ugabma_wwlaw_wwlaw-0046"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/2000"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["moving images","oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 video file (mp4) : 4 min., 2 sec. : sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fqr_asm0656_456","title":"American Jewish Committee Miami Chapter 50th anniversary gala invitation, May 18, 2002","collection_id":"fqr_asm0656","collection_title":"Seymour Samet Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Miami-Dade County, Miami Beach, 25.79065, -80.13005"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-05-18"],"dcterms_description":["American Jewish Committee Miami Chapter 50th anniversary gala invitation, May 18, 2002"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["University of Miami. Library. Special Collections","Seymour Samet Papers","ASM0656"],"dcterms_subject":["American Jewish Committee","American Jewish Committee. Miami Chapter"],"dcterms_title":["American Jewish Committee Miami Chapter 50th anniversary gala invitation, May 18, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Miami. Library. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/cdm/ref/collection/asm0656/id/456"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright. Copyright is held by the creator. For additional information, please visit: https://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/digital/custom/copyright-guidelines"],"dcterms_medium":["invitations"],"dcterms_extent":["1 invitation","4 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Samet, Seymour, 1919-2014"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1736","title":"District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School enrollment","School districts","Student activities","Students","Parents","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1736"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["91 page scan, typed","50 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, five orders; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT u.foilfm~cPuRT -\"'EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAY 0 7 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff;-- vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER ~~M~~ No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED MAY -8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua lntervenors have moved for a second extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For cause, Joshua Intervenors state that they are in settlement talks with LRSD on the issue ofLRSD's unitary status, and that \"additional time is needed to continue these discussions.\" Although Joshua's counsel has asked to extend the response time until May 20, 2002, I take judicial notice of the fact that he is a candidate for the Arkansas Senate; and the primary election is on Tuesday, May 21 , 2002. Accordingly, I am granting Joshua Intervenors an extension until and including May 30, 2002. I do note that the chances of another extension are remote, at best. DATED this ( tff day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE w~/iULE ss ANotoR~7F9R CP ON ~(}y BY ~ ~ 1 7 595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN D1STRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. l , et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , lntervenors, 4:82cv00866 RECEIVED MAY - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG ORDER The parties are notified that Judge J. Thomas Ray is the U. S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Dated this 6th day of May, 2002 . . /11:L ' ------ JY ry{, ~ . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ~CP ON -0.-1 f?\"\"r: BY , c.,,,,,. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 596 A072A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT CO_B~J~Jk1 ~1?ouRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ER~l DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAY 9 2082 LITTLE ROCKS,CHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VY. IVIT\\L~n 1V1ALK., CLE.RK. B . \\J y .:OT A ~ --- y. - - Ut:t''.Ct:tKK V. No. 4-:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On January 3, 2002, I was assigned this twenty-year-old action, which over the years has come to be known in this District simply as \"the school case\" (docket entry #3570). Pleadings in the case now occupy hundreds of feet of files in the District Court Clerk's office, and the magnitude of the appeals in the case has led the Eighth Circuit to adopt a policy of rotating the case to a new appeal panel every five years. Thus, by necessity, the decisions I make will be built on the footings and foundations poured by other District Court and Appellate Court Judges--their decisions have shaped the current contours of the case. On March 15, 2001, approximately nine months before I inherited this case, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a pleading which could result in a watershed ruling--a Request for Scheduling Order and attached Compliance Report ( docket entry #3410) aimed at obtaining \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" Id. Subsequently, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed an Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3447) in which they challenge the LRSD's contention that it is entitled to A072A a judicial declaration that it has achieved overall unitary status. On January 25, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry#357 l) referring the issue of unitary status to a mediator. In doing so, it was my understanding that the LRSD and Joshua both had requested mediation as a means of promptly, efficiently, and finally resolving that issue. Over ninety days have now elapsed, with no report that progress has been made through mediation. I was somewhat sanguine, but the lapse of time with no report of progress has dampened my optimism. 1 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after filing its Compliance Report, the LRSD filed a Motion for an lrnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket entry #3580) and supporting Memorandum Brief (docket entry #3581). On May 6, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry #3595) granting Joshua's request for an extension of time and allowing them until and including May 30, 2002, to file their Response. The recent actions of the parties, in placing the issue of unitary status back before me, appears to be a clear signal that mediation is not succeeding and that settlement negotiations have stalled. Therefore, the Court intends to decide, soon, the issue of unitary status raised in the LRSD's March 15 Motion. Inheriting the case at this point (I hope its shadow is falling far to the east) has required me to review an enormous amount of material just to try to determine where we are.2 Although 1On April 18, 2002, Joshua filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #3592) that alludes to the parties having engaged in \"settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status.\" I have heard nothing further from the parties regarding these settlement discussions. It is most unlikely that any future requests for extensions will be granted because of \"settlement discussions.\" 2The fields of education and \"school litigation\" also have a jargon of their own which a neophyte must attempt to absorb. -2- A072A IRP.vR/~ it may be old hat to the parties, I believe it will be helpful for me to set out in some detail where I find we are and, just as importantly, where I intend to go. I. Where I Find We Are On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the LRSD's January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). On April 10, 1998, the Court entered an Order ( docket entry #3144) approving the Revised Plan. Section 11 of the Revised Plan specifically describes the procedure the LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status At the conclusion of the 2000-0 I school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 , indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. On March 15, 200 l , the LRSD filed the required \"Compliance Report\" ( docket entry #3410),3 which describes section by section the LRSD's alleged \"substantial compliance'\"' with each provision of the Revised Plan. The Court entered an Order (docket entry #3414) establishing May 18, 2001, as the 3 Although not required by the Revised Plan, on March 15, 2000, the LRSD filed an Interim Compliance Report (docket entry #3356). 4 The Revised Plan does not define what \"substantial compliance\" means, but, as Professor McCormick teaches us, it takes \"a skillful definer to make it plainer by multiplication of words   the explanations themselves often need more explanation than the term explained . .. . \" 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 341, p. 430 (5th ed. 1999). -3- A07?A --- deadline for challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report. Subsequently, Joshua moved three times for extensions of that deadline ( docket entries #3415, #3429, and #3443). Finally, the Court entered an Order (docket entry#3445) establishing June 25, 2001, as the final deadline for Joshua to file their Response to the LRSD's Compliance Report.5 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to the LRSD 's Compliance Report ( docket entry #3447). In this Opposition, Joshua argues that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with various specifically enumerated sections of the Compliance Report and describes the nature of the LRSD's noncompliance under each of those sections. Importantly, Section 11 of the Revised Plan explicitly provides that the \"challenging party'' has the burden of proving that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Counsel for Joshua has acknowledged on the record that the Court has \"given us and by agreement we accept the burden of proof' ( docket entry #3464, transcript of July 9, 2001 scheduling conference, p. 26, lines 14-17).6 Almost immediately after Joshua filed their Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report, the Court began a series of telephone conferences with counsel (docket entries #3348 and #3349) to establish a schedule for conducting evidentiary hearings on Joshua's challenges to the Compliance Report. During the June 29, 2001 telephone conference, the Court set aside July 5 5During a telephone conference on June 29, 2001, the Court described in some detail the circumstances surrounding the three extensions of this filing deadline ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, pp. 24-25). 61ndependent of this judicial admission, the Court specifically ruled that, under the plain language of Section 11 of the Revised Plan, it was agreed that any party, such as Joshua, who challenges the LRSD' s compliance will bear the burden of proof ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, p. 26, lines 11 -21). -4- A072A (Rev.8/82) and 6 and August 1 and 2 to hear evidence from Joshua regarding its challenges to the LRSD's \"substantial compliance\" with the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3461 at p. 25, lines 22-25, and p. 26, lines 1-9). The Court also made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence ( docket entry #3461, pp. 54-55). Because Joshua has the burden of proof, the Court allowed them to put on their case first. On July 5 and 6, 2001 , Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services (docket entry #3462, transcript of July 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing and docket entry #3463, transcript ofJuly 6, 2001 evidentiaryhearing at pp. 274-340) and Dr. Les Carnine, the former Superintendent of the LRSD (docket entry #3463, transcript of July 6, 2001 evidentiary hearing). During his cross-examination7 of these two witnesses, counsel for Joshua sought to elicit testimony proving that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with three specific obligations under the Revised Plan: (1) \"Good faith\" implementation of the policies, programs, and procedures described in the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1. l ); (2) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3-5.3.5, 5.4, 5.6.1, and 2.7.1); and (3) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures regarding various aspects of student discipline (sections 2.5 and 2.5.1- 2.5.4). After taking the first two days of testimony, the Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 7This technically was \"direct examination,\" but since the witnesses were associated with an adverse party, it was, in effect, cross-examination. -5- AO 72A 200 I, to schedule the remaining days necessary to complete the evidentiary hearing on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3464, transcript of scheduling conference held on July 9, 2001). Counsel for Joshua, in response to questions from the Court, stated that he believed the LRSD 's three most serious areas of non-compliance under the Revised Plan were failing to remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; continuing a policy of disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions; and failing, in good faith, to properly implement the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 26- 29). With the agreement of counsel, the Court set aside August 1 and 2 and November 19 and 20 to complete the evidentiary record on these three discrete issues ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 45- 46, 51-52, and 60-61 ). In formulating this schedule, the Court indicated that it would hear six hours of testimony on August 1, November 19, and November 20, and three hours of testimony on August 2. The Court ruled that these twenty-one hours of anticipated testimony would be divided equally between Joshua and the LRSD, so that each side would be allowed ten and onehalf hours to put on their respective cases on the issues of good faith, student achievement, and student discipline (docket entry #3464 at pp. 62-64). Finally, at the close of the July 9 scheduling conference, the Court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel, that makes it clear everyone knew and understood the three issues that would be tried to conclusion during the hearings on August 1-2 and November 19-20: MR. HELLER: But I just want to be sure we have heard Mr. Walker's case before we present ours. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. In other words, and these will be discrete issues, and I say they are discrete. Discipline and achievement, and I agree that there is some linkage there between the two. But those things, achievement particularly, is what is bothering me. -6- A072A (Acn,A / R'J\\ And discipline, maybe Mr. Walker can make me think that discipline ought to be bothering me too, and I guess it is to an extent because of the way the District has presented it. But still, there is some improvement there. MR.WALKER: Here is the other thing. Throughout this whole thing, the concept of good faith is present, and I don't th.ink we are going to have separate sections where we present good faith evidence. Part of what would be presented, as we are presented with Dr. Carnine and Mr. Babbs, is evidence to show that they had no intention of doing what they said they were going to do, and they really did not do it. So, that will be addressing good faith. THE COURT: Well, of course, you are free to do that. I have personally observed that Little Rock, I think, has been much, much better in recent years than it was when I first got the case .... (Docket entry #3464, p. 65, lines 16-25, and p. 66, lines 1-23.) In the August 1, 2001 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua called and examined Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of the LRSD, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction ( docket entry #3493). At the beginning of the August 2 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua re-examined Dr. Mitchell, and called and examined Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent responsible for handling discipline in alternative education settings, and James Washington, the ombudsperson for the LRSD ( docket entry #3494). During his examination of these four witnesses, counsel for Joshua again sought to elicit testimony regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations related to good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; and to eliminate the disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions. At the conclusion of the August 2 hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had -7- AO 72A used eight of his allotted ten and one-half hours ohime. The Court made it clear that counsel for Joshua could elect to rest his case and use the remaining two and one-half hours to cross-examine witnesses called by the LRSD or he could forego cross-examination and continue to call witnesses. Joshua's counsel indicated that, after he called a few \"brief' witnesses at the beginning of the November 19 hearing, he intended to rest his case and reserve his remaining time for cross-examination (docket entry #3494, pp. 950-954). At the beginning of the November 19 evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had decided to rest his case on the issues of the LRSD's good faith compliance with implementation of the Revised Plan, the implementation of programs and policies designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, and student discipline (docket entry #3558 at pp. 14-15). After the Court denied its Motion for Directed Verdict on those issues, the LRSD proceeded to call three witnesses: James Washington, Dr. Linda Watson, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their respective direct and crossexaminations of Mr. Washington and Dr. Watson on November 19. However, counsel for the LRSD was not able to complete his direct examination of Dr. Lesley (docket entry #3558). On November 20, counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their direct and crossexaminations of Dr. Lesley. After counsel for Joshua concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Lesley, he sought to call several \"rebuttal witnesses\" in what he estimated to be his remaining \"25 or so minutes\" of the original ten and one-half hours of time (docket entry #3559, p. 573). Counsel for the LRSD objected and suggested that \"the time left for Mr. Walker is just about zero\" (docket entry #3559, p. 573). -8- A072A The Court resolved this dispute by making the following unequivocal ruling: THE COURT: But I will tell you what I will do, I will give you [Mr. Walker] twenty-five more minutes. Now that's it. (Docket entry #3559 at p. 575, lines 21-23; emphasis added.) Although counsel for Joshua urged the Court to \"keep an open mind on aJ~owing Joshua more time,\" the Court refused to reconsider its ruling. The Court also made it clear that, if counsel for Joshua intended to call members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") as rebuttal witnesses, their testimony would count against his remaining twenty-five minutes of time (docket entry #3559 at p. 583, lines 9- 12). Thus, at the conclusion of the November20 evidentiary hearing, six days of testimony and hundreds of exhibits had been introduced in connection with what Joshua identified as their three strongest arguments against declaring the LRSD unitary: ( 1) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the \"good faith\" obligations contained in the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; and (3) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Furthermore, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD had both rested their cases on these three issues, and all that remained was for Joshua's counsel to use his remaining \"twenty-five minutes\" to call rebuttal witnesses.8 On December 11, 2001, the Court conducted a scheduling hearing to discuss issues and 8Counsel for Joshua indicated that these rebuttal witnesses might include the staff of ODM, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Roberts. -9- AO 7'?A witnesses that would be presented during a five-day evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28 (docket entry #3597). At the beginning of the hearing, the Court noted that Joshua had twenty-five minutes of\"true rebuttal\" testimony that remained to be heard on the three discrete issues which had been tried to conclusion during the six previous days of hearings (docket entry #3597 at p. 5). The Court requested that counsel for Joshua identify the issues and witnesses he intended to cover during the upcoming five-day evidentiary hearing. Counsel for Joshua identified the following areas of the Revised Plan which he intended to attack to prove the LRSD was not in substantial compliance: ( 1) extracurricular activities; (2) advanced placement courses; (3) guidance and counseling; (4) the student assignment plan; (5) no middle school evaluation; (6) the Cook School closing; (7) housing desegregation; (8) interdistrict schools and monitoring student recruitment; (9) staffing and funding incentive schools; (10) alternative education; (11) compliance standards; ( 12) desegregation plan modification; and ( 13) the academic achievement gap ( docket entry #3597 at pp. 6-19). Counsel for Joshua estimated it would take three full weeks to put on his case regarding these issues ( docket entry #3597 at p. 19). LRSD's counsel strenuously objected to Joshua expanding their attack on the LRSD's substantial compliance to include essentially every section of the Revised Plan. First, counsel noted that: (a) section 8.2 of the Revised Plan sets forth a detailed procedure for raising compliance issues; and (b) Joshua had failed to utilize that procedure to raise any of the foregoing compliance issues before filing their June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. Similarly, counsel noted that Joshua had never raised any objection to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 (docket entry #3597 at pp. 21-23). -10- AO 72A /Rev.8/82\\ Second, counsel noted that Joshua was now raising challenges to the LRSD's substantial compliance with sections 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.3--provisions of the Revised Plan that were not challenged in Joshua's June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3597 at p. 23). Finally, counsel stated his much different understanding of the purpose for the December 11 scheduling hearing: I thought the purpose of what we were going to do today was to narrow the issues; get this down to some very specific issues, talk about what specific evidence was going to be needed to litigate those issues, and then set some very limited time frames to get the case on a track where the Court and the parties can fulfill their responsibility to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. (Docket entry #3597 at p. 24). In resolving this contentious dispute between counsel regarding the scope of the issues that remained on the question of unitary status, the Court first noted that counsel for Joshua had already presented his strongest evidence on student achievement and student discipline, the \"areas of [the LRSD's] compliance [with the Revised Plan] that he [counsel for Joshua] thought were weakest.\" Next, the Court identified four remaining issues related to unitary status that Joshua would be allowed to cover during the hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) guidance counseling; (3) extracurricular activities; and ( 4) the LRSD's overall obligation of good faith under the Revised Plan (docket entry #3598 at pp. 31- 32).9 The Court went on to explicitly describe how it intended to conduct the final five days of 9The Court concluded that advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities were issues closely related to the issue of improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, the Court indicated that Joshua would be allowed to present evidence on student achievement but only for the limited purpose of explaining how the LRSD's policies, programs, and procedures regarding advanced placement courses, -11- AO 72A ,n .... . . n ,n,..,\\ evidentiary hearings: THE COURT: But this is what I would like to do. Instead of giving you three weeks, I would like to, which I don't have, by the way, what I would like to do is give careful attention to achievement, guidance and counseling, and related matters such as advanced placement and extracurricular the week ofJanuary 28th . Again, I think good faith is always an issue and you can always bring that up. But I would like to confine vour focus to those matters and then, I would like to make a ruling, I would like to have everything on those matters submitted to the Court, so that I can make a ruling with respect to them. And if necessary, give the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to give us further guidance. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would just prefer that. And I think that that would be something the District would like. It might bring this matter to closure more quickly, one way or the other. (Docket entry #3597 at pp. 36-37; emphasis added). II. Where We Go From Here Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD 's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 1 For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. This means I must now address only two issues still hanging fire. guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. 'From my review of the transcripts, I hardly see why it should take five days for the additional evidence (two days would seem to be time aplenty), but Judge Wright has dealt with this case for a long time, and I will defer to her call. -12- A072A /Oou 0 / Ct ? \\ First, at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001 hearing, Judge Wright allowed Joshua twenty-five minutes to put on \"true rebuttal\" testimony relevant to three discrete issues: ( 1) the LRSD's good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to insure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Having never been one to place too fine a point on time-keeping, I will allow Joshua thirty full minutes to present \"true rebuttal\" testimony directed at these three precise issues. After this brief rebuttal testimony has been received, the record will be closed on the issue of the LRSD's substantial compliance with those sections of the Revised Plan related to the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 3.4, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.2. 1, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2, 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3, 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3, 5.3.1-5 .3.5, 5.4, and 5.6.1) and student discipline (sections 2.5, 2.5 .1-2.5.4). As early as practical in June, I intend to schedule a short evidentiary hearing to allow counsel for Joshua to present this \"true rebuttal\" testimony. I would also welcome a stipulation or other arrangement that would allow this extremely brief and limited rebuttal evidence to go into the record, without the need for a formal hearing. Second, I need to establish the basic ground rules for the final evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the LRSD has achieved unitary status. Before beginning the six days of evidentiary hearings last year on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's request for unitary status, Joshua's counsel agreed to arrange his evidence so that he presented his strongest arguments against unitary status first. Thus, I must conclude that the record now contains all of Joshua's strongest evidence ofLRSD's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations under -13- I I AO 72A /Rev.A/A?\\ the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1.1). Nevertheless, consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the Court will allow Joshua to present additional evidence of the LRSD 's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directlv to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith. Similarly, in putting on evidence regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities, counsel for Joshua may present evidence regarding how those issues adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. However, the Court will not allow counsel for Joshua to introduce any new or cumulative evidence on the issue of academic achievement, a subject that has already been thoroughly and extensively covered by Joshua's presentation of their strongest evidence during last year's six days of evidentiary hearings. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order within ten days setting aside up to five days (probably in June and/or July) to conclude the evidentiary record on the remaining factual issues relevant to the question of whether the LRSD is entitled to a declaration ofunitary status. Prior to entering that Order, the Court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to set the dates during which this evidentiary hearing will take place. \u0026lt;)Tn DATED this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,_, _\"TH RULE 58 ANO/OR~ fR_;: () ~o/10/0 a-~ Gj1 ~ UNITEb ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al MAY 2 0 2002 KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER u.frJJR1~PuRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This is to confirm a telephone conference will be held today, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to carefully review the Court's Order of May 9, 2002 before the telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2002. .u J d,. ln\\n  ,-~:1~,-f-.( UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE ord.LRSD 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL '' DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT c- 1\\STER!~\\ CJiST9'CT ADV ~r--1c; Ac; ,M~Y 1 5 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2002 Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~l\\Ott MOttllORlltG Yesterday, on May 14, 2002, an on-the-record telephone conference was held with the lawyers for all the parties. During the telephone conference the following schedule was adopted: l. A final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School District's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status was set to commence on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; and to conclude on Friday, July 26 at 5:30 p.m . The time will be divided as follows: a. At 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 22 the Joshua intervenors will be given 30 minutes within which to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright; b. -2- The remaining forty hours of trial time will be divided equally (twenty hours and twenty hours) between the Joshua intervenors and the Little Rock School District. The Joshua intervenors must notify the Court, on or before July 9, 2002 of the amount of time, out of their twenty hours, that they wish to reserve to present rebuttal evidence. 2. I expect to take testimony from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 22 (with an hour for lunch); and from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. on each of the following four days (with an hour for lunch each day). 3. On or before June 21, 2002 the parties are directed to identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included, of each witness 's anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address. 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre - marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances . S. U. S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray will conduct a hearing commencing at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 2002. At that hearing, all exhibits will be presented, and pre-marked references will be two-blocked ; the witness lists and accompanying witness statements mentioned above will be submitted ; and evidentiary objections and motions in Ii mine will be submitted (it is likely that -3- 1 will later rule on most of the evidentiary objections and motions in limine, - although Judge Ray may issue some rulings during his hearing). 4. By 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, August 19, 2002 the parties must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Little Rock School Districts Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status. 5. It is re-emphasized that the parties will be required to present evidence within the limits set in my order of Thursday, May 9. 6. Counsel are instructed to interview and prepare witnesses for rifle - shot presentations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12.~ay of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITI-J?.llj-E 58 AND/~~)~ FRCP ON 1/J\"-/-Dr'sy_.~~--- RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 May 21, 2002 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Dennis Hansen Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: DennisH@ag.state.ar.us Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy a Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-styled case, which I am filing with the Court today. Very truly yours, 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Cover Letter May 21, 2002 DRH/dpn Enclosure cc: Ray Simon Scott Smith Q:\\Civil\\MarkH\\Open Files\\deseg\\2002\\ c orrespondence ~ ~ Ll~~~iJ  R Hansen DAessnimstsa nt A ttome y General \\ltr cover 5-2 I -02drh.doc IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF lltS6RE6AT!ON MOillTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to state for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel the following: 1. Mark A. Hagemeier recently resigned from his position with the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General will be representing the defendant, ADE in this matter. 3. All correspondence and filings should be forwarded to the attention of Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock AR, 72201. Wherefore, the defense respectfully requests that Dennis R. Hansen be substituted as the attorney ofrecord for defendant ADE Respectfully submitted, MARK PRYOR, Attorney General By ~ L(-i44t. Dennis R. Hansen #97225 Deputy Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prien Tower 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-1315 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, do hereby certify that I have served the foreg~ument by mailing a copy of same by US. Mail, postage prepaid, thisj}s+ day of , 2002, to the following: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen AO 72A (Rev.8/82) FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUiPf\"i D!Srn:c--T \\CH' '~IC: l'I C: FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS M1\\Y 2 8 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. 8y: _________ _ DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Pending before the Court is Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602). In that Motion, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education asks that Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen be substituted for Mark A. Hagemeier as its counsel of record in this matter because Mr. Hagemeier no longer works for the Attorney General 's Office. The Court finds good cause for granting the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to substituted Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen as the attorney of record for Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Dated this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE .. :, c-1 ,~d e.!.: 53 t/:l.:,/OP~7~(~)i,:RCP 5'/17/01/ -- ---~ ---- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f\u0026lt;,'.':' ? t 11- ? EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS1~  t.LL,. WESTERN DIVISION By:MES W. McCORMACI(, CLER/( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED MAY 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DE;-:, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \" [ LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for a three-year term assuming substantial and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] 1 The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year [to] 1 .E....,__g_,_, Sturgis v. Skosos, 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 be a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 2 The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at--) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at--). On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an \"[O]pposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report.\" The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e., on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2 .1 ( general requirement of good faith compliance); achievement) ; 2.5-2.5.4 ( student discipline); 2.7.1 (program evaluation) ; 3 2.7 2.12.2 (academic (general 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment, the terms assessment and evaluation are, at times, used interchangeably. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation, until, in 2 requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate .. ); 6.0 to 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a. ); Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Carnine); Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion, this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore, do not respond to LRSD' s argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [ LRSD Mem. - the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See,~, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 223 ( \"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3 Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement ( at 37-40), and Program Evaluation ( at 40-46) . An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of a concept of \"substantial compliance. 11  Intervenors' fact.ual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix.' Summary of the Evidence I. Student Discipline A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and \\ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to school discipline. 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set  Intervenors dispute, in the argument, LRSD' s repetitive suggestion [....,Jl_,_, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 4 forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2. 5. 2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; .. 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriata disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of indi victuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 5 6. 7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 2000) ( 2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discriminatibn and policies on discipline records); revision of student handbooks; creation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building ... \"; staff development; a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD; the sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools; and expansion of the number of alternative learning sites. [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities; directing principals to comply with the handbook; informing students and parents of standards; and employing the ombudsman. [at 15] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards; in-service training; and implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson). [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6 addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan); establishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and ... work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"; increasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work. [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such- plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the \"Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is as follows: Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. [at 16] (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6. 0 through 6. 7 ( general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline. [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on school discipline, at pages 24-26. 7 (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students; the decrease in the number of students committing offenses; the sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"). [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of - general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [ at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman; steps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services; and a description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8 services related to over 450 incidents. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved. [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2 .12. 2 ( investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in ... discipline (Section 2.5) ... 165] 5 \" [at (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above). [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan.\" It added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with [the] Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9 D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14; March 2001, at 24; Tr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21; at 55, 22 to 56, 15; at 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in ex 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer, 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more, 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). Suspension Index by Year\")] [CX 743 (\"Discipline ( 9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24); Watson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 14- 21; at 113, 14 to 114, 1; ex 743] 7 (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [ at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr., 11-19-01, 'at 25, 16-19] 7 On June 14, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. It sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the number of students subjected to one or more suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of overrepresentation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. 10 reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell); Tr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14; at 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson); ex 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\"); see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [g__,__g_,_, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15; March 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals, . whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16; 128, 6-18; 149, 10 to 150, 25; 155, 7-12; 161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data, Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11 A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up of teachers, administrators, support staff, that are helping to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] ( 16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \" [has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in d~scipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had \"prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"Not to my - knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8; see also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, because apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12 (18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to -- and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, 16-25; emphasis added] (19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. 8 The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. 13 A. Because I took -- once the report came out. we discussed it in the cabinet. and it was the decision at that time that we would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them, didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, we were not going to address the issues. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25; emphasis added] ( 20.) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had -- you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools, Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14 Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree . [Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] ( 21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be e xpected to accomplish . The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114 , 4 to 119, 8; see also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)] . E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan ( 2 2 . ) Section 2. 5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the requisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement [ ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [.E....,__g__._, Tr., 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6 . 1, 6.2, 6. 3 , 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline . Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the requirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2. 5. 3, and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming t hat LRSD substantially 15 complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [ at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr . Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [ CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000dd( 4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance) . . Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] 9 (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [ ex 672-76; Tr., 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with 9 LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16 regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline; the system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6 , 13 . The LRSD did not implement any programs , policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools or personnel. See paras. 12-18. (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [ Section 2. 5. 4 J , and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20; compare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter; and, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, 16-19], and the system's major witness on the topic, testified: \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSO Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline, is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. \" [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following. [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Or. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time ... we would not respond or do anything\"; \" issues.\" See para. 19. . we were not going to address the II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of AfricanAmerican Students A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan ( 29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and\\or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this revised plan. 2. 7 .1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 19 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6. 4. Utilization of moni taring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; ... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem ( 3 o. ) Two aspects of Section 2. 7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design [ ing]\" programs and other initiatives; rather, the initiatives must also be \"implement[ed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years, Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if you will remember, and in fact -- if I can find the document, and I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20 that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort. where I felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing different, not that I am not -- I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely. but we are getting there .... [At 450- 51; emphasis added] (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] ( 33.) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for 'LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999) 1 0 and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. The State requires local districts to give benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in grades four and eight. These instruments are 21 (Grade 3, Fall 1998) .ii On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level ( \"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of AfricanAmerican grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels ... , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13]= ( 34.) The federal educational program known as \"Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56; Tr., 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9; \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" March 15, 2002, 'Tab 5, at 9 J ii For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report, at 56. i 2 The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22 Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68; see 20 u.s.c. Sec. 2701] ( 35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title I programs. The March 2000 interim report described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The staff found that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignment between the Title I programs and the reaular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68; emphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr., 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else .... [Tr., 11-19-01, at 199-200] (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 Title I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding (i.e., originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] ( 39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.1 at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan, alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24 development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32; see also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures, some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed durihg 1998-99 and the Board of directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. The March 2000 report stated that \"PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD . \" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99; see also id. at 25 90 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: Implementation of standards-based, inquiry-based instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers and 4 5 3 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is a vitally important part of the new literacy program. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 200113 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2. 7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students ... \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. 13 See March 2000 report at 43, 44, 4 7, 48, 49; March 2001 report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 26 ( i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA ( \"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives  11 [CX 719, Policy IHBA] (ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R \"Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers \"of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [ i] is not performing on grade level (K-4); [ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8); and [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, 27 geometry, and\\or algebra.\" \"School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. 11 The regulation further provides: The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1. 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2. 7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, is also apparent. (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] ( 4 3. ) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999 11 the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91 ] (44 . ) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that -- particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get all that done. It has to be followed up over and over and over. And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so much. The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207, 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the Pre-K-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. 1  The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional develop-ment . . 'In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \" [ LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status.\" 29 investing in curriculum materials.' ... [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the \"Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based; 2 - partially implementing standards-based; 1 - minimally implementing standards based; O - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30 follows: \"4 - excellent; 3 - good; 2 - fair; 1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 32 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents a trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on the data provided, the District is in an active transition from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2. 4 ( on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000-01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] ( 48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3; compare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000 11 [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 (49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include . . an examination  of the different forms of inter-ventions. II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum, LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the \"Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51.) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether the new PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32 Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, State Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination, which measure mastery of knowledge and skills, identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra; see also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, eight percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, yes, AfricanAmerican students were eight proficient. Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33 o. And a major part of your explanation for that result is that those students. in terms of the curriculum they had received. had not been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math. right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, 20 percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. o. And do you think that. again. that part of the reason for that was that the curriculum those students had had not covered many of the strands in the state benchmarks for literacy? A. Yes. [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21; emphasis added] (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were -- 4th grade literacy 19%; 4th grade math 14%; 8th grade literacy 18%; and 8th grade math only 49.c I 0. See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the gradeappropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34 new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004) . 1 5 (55 . ) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks; (b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2. 7; or ( c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than, as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras . 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 1 5 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of deli very of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). ( 57.) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 - 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on, \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such; the staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such, violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36 III. Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years, Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct, about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]; Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie) . i 6 (60.) The LRSD did not \"[develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . \"during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell); see also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 Carnine)] to 3 7 9 , 18 (Dr. (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show, at best, continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at \"See also ex 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [ i J the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01); [ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6. 6 times ( 1998-99), 4 .1 times ( 1999-2000), and 3. 7 times ( 2000-01); [ iii J the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01); and [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 1996-97 through 2001-02 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last {2001- 02) years of the six year period. [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances; [ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances; [iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 instances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [CX 741, at 1] ( 62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[lhg_._, Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the ORA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program, Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use ORA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black, from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 obligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students , \" See paragraphs 41-55. ( 65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 11 which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part 5 of the plan. Third. The assessment obligation is annual in nature. ( 67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w] ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably \" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions, that compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40 this proposition, when called as a witness by the Joshua Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to ( e) . (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver from State or District rules includes an evaluation design 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See ex 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. (CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44; emphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites, inter 41 alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [ at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [ at 52], and \" [ t ]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda August 1999.\" [At 53] approved by the Board of Education in (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" -- a title which is repeated at a later point in the discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12; see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook .. obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \"assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22; 243, 6 to 249, 14; see also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel) ] 17 The content of paragraphs 1 7 Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment from a \"program evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23] -- a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year. \"In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment'' as 42 (a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook obligation.\" [this] (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program, and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr. , 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, 23; at 389, 18 to 392, 18; at 400, 16 to 401, 22 (Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, inter-encompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43 nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley); at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 334, 5-14 ; at 495, 16 to 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley); Tr., 11- 20-0l, at 321, 21 to 322, 22; at 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9; at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below par. See para. 49. (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47; March 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44 \"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000 11 was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721; Tr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell); Tr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated ... [11] programs .... 11 [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001; there is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [ dd J The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001; it was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45 [hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727; Tr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is a collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728; Tr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [ j j] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship, dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729; Tr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief, undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2. 7 .1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46 Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [ two of] the parties ... \"[LRSD v. PCSSD, li, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)] -- the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaskui County Special School District, No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum, this court is called upon to apply the parties ' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)J The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation, and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteriaa is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\"); they form \"the law of [this] case.\" 1 8 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47 Construed as an entirety [seen. 1 at 1, supra], the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. [At 1199; emphasis added] The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are, first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable; \"[t]he consent decree did not state the time of its duration.\" See 139 F.3d at 1198. 48 the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, \"serious\" matters. given their subject matter, involve The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable .from one context to another. Like 'reasonableness,' ... 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance .... [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra J, Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49 B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on race.\" See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious.\" Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . \" [Sec. 2.5; emphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of life. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore, \"the law of this case.\" The (behavior failure to implement the modification plans) provisions can not of be Section 2. 5. 4 dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50 of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans; the LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C. Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] \"[T]he circumstances of [this] case ... \"[Fortin.supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program -- a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements of federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum, implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula, provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth J not performing well, and moni taring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43-51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so -- and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine); see para. 62. The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]; there have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At 1. para. BJ Manifestly, a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52 \"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Se    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16863","title":"Ozell Sutton interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"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":["Sutton, Ozel"],"dc_date":["2002-05-06"],"dcterms_description":["Interview discussing his memories of L.C. and Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"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":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African Americans","Civil rights workers","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Ozell Sutton interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16863"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gsu_ggdp_5481","title":"William Ide oral history interview, 2002 April 29","collection_id":"gsu_ggdp","collection_title":"Georgia Government Documentation Project","dcterms_contributor":["Kuhn, Cliff"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Ide, R. William, 1940-"],"dc_date":["2002-04-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Georgia State University Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Government Documentation Project","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/1508"],"dcterms_subject":["Race relations","Civil rights movements","Legal aid","Lawyers","Washington and Lee University","American Bar Association","Georgia Legal Services Program"],"dcterms_title":["William Ide oral history interview, 2002 April 29"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ggdp/id/5481"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Ide, R. William, Interviewed by Cliff Kuhn, 29 April 2002, P2002-03, Series Q. Georgia Legal Services, Georgia Government Documentation Project, Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 hour, 37 minutes, 16 seconds of audio spread over 3 sides of 2 tapes, and a 53 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Ide, R. William, 1940-","Powell, Lewis F., Jr., 1907-1998","Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16813","title":"Theodsin Cooper interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"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":["Cooper, Theodsin"],"dc_date":["2002-04-28"],"dcterms_description":["Interview about her friendship with Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"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":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African American women civil rights workers","Medical care"],"dcterms_title":["Theodsin Cooper interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16813"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16789","title":"Annie Abrams interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"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":["Abrams, Annie Mable McDaniel"],"dc_date":["2002-04-12","2002-04-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"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":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Civil rights movements","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Annie Abrams interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16789"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999","Bates, L. C., 1901-1980"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_35","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-04","2002-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","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/35"],"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.\n\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 3 o 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General -y{\\~~~ ~--~~ MARK A. HAGEME~ #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen~ 11 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the. infqrm~tlpr,je'~y~\\labi'~ ifM~r~IiI~:i:ilJliii'Q~\n::lhi':A.. q~!ctila{~:~\ntR\nJ Equalization Funding fo'fFY 01/02, sLibjecftq][~ijpdic~djustrn:i3ht:: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 8 . Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;f,~~~ii,ai~~l~ll~1~~@:~:,vct1~ifli~~~arch'3JJ'~ma.2J'JR~:'6.:B~~aI~Ja'm8JgffEX C. Process and distribute State MFPA 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Qh fy1afchf C:ibci2, disttibutior116f$iate EqU~fi~jfBh f'D/\\dihg fq[FX'.oJ.%02:w\nr~ as.t611ows: LR.SD '~ $38,318,228 NLRS6\\ $20.~69,908 pcssD \u0026lt;$39,767,42b LRSD - $52, 189,~57 NLRSD - $28,093\n868 PCSSD - $54}!08:571 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March31\n2a02 for FY 61102, subject to periodic adjustmellts. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2 Actual as of March 29, 2002 ~Ji~\n~~lf it:ft:.~lt\\~ii~~}~tl!~t~r01\n~~~c~~ati: ~~~~~\n/~-~~~~:iir~1 Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Bas~d on t'Re informiitiori avalfable, the A.DE calculated at March 31,-2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periqdic adjustments. . G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at March 31, 2002, totaled $8,136,297. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ois1r1ptvQHt'r8t:Rx::1t1zo2t~t M.~l~rt:~J\nr2002~~tet t,B:::~\n:i?.::rz:~g ,, NLRSD%$1403 839 ss6.::*I\nJs:1It'\n:ij12\nt~'iiWl{~\n~~~j1{m~ia:18? ~x=:6':rza:r~tMarar :f1\n-2602 .=su BJecIt o pehbd12 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;~~~--\"~,,,1tlll~~~11!!W~ A.tM~i~tt:i\n{J:n,go,02tlb\"~Lfq!Jow.16.H1~am@~bJ~:a@ .r 6fi_fi.,X:,.QJ102_,rni lillll M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process . The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process , external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled . Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities fo'r the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 15 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E of this report. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes , acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9 00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing C Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 2 4 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports . In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the re vised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkans.a$State soafa.of EdlJciltlBB'l ~vlewed and approveid\"the PMT and its executive sunWnary forthe inOr\\tti.of r,,AafcK\n31 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties . During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan , and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees , assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established , and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of April 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, ie , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative , \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000 The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students) , 6) how to correctly interpret scores . This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 44 VI REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training . The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrc\n3tors at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses . She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting . On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan , representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a val idated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SA T-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 51 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 53 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30 , 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9 00 a.m , Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":349,"next_page":350,"prev_page":348,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4176,"total_count":81557,"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":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"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":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"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":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"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":1915},{"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":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"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":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"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":2771},{"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":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"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":145},{"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":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"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":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}