{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"vhs_crmva_passiveresistance","title":"Ongoing Resistance to Desegregation","collection_id":"vhs_crmva","collection_title":"Civil Rights Movement in Virginia : An Exhibition on Display February 7 - June 19, 2004","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, 37.54812, -77.44675"],"dcterms_creator":["Richmond Times-Dispatch"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Section of online exhibit outlining some of the ways white parents and school boards resisted court-ordered school integration following the end of the Massive Resistance campaign including racial bias in the Pupil Placement Board and white flight. The page includes two black-and-white photographs from the Virginia Historical Society and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of: The Civil Rights movement in Virginia (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Civil Rights Movement in Virginia Collection (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Segregation--Virginia","Civil rights movements--Virginia","African Americans--Civil rights--Virginia","Education--Virginia","Segregation in education--Virginia","African Americans--Education","De facto school segregation--Virginia","Passive resistance--Virginia"],"dcterms_title":["Ongoing Resistance to Desegregation"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Virginia Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://virginiahistory.org/learn/historical-book/chapter/ongoing-resistance-desegregation"],"dcterms_temporal":["1959/1975"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_597","title":"Oral history interview of Buell Wallace Gifford","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Japan, Naha Air Base, 26.19065735, 127.653682387641","Japan, Okinawa, 26.53806, 127.96778","Philippines, Mindoro, 12.8692137, 121.134575750245","United States, Arkansas, Faulkner County, Conway, 35.0887, -92.4421","United States, California, Monterey County, Fort Ord Military Reservation (historical), 36.65278, -121.80056","United States, Hawaii, 20.78785, -156.38612","United States, Texas, Smith County, Camp Fannin, 32.42367925, -95.2112318132556"],"dcterms_creator":["Gantsoudes, Lillian","Gifford, Buell Wallace, 1924-2006"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Atrocities","Segregation--United States","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Pacific Area","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Pacific Ocean","Bronze Star Medal (U.S.)","Silver Star","United States. Army. Infantry Division, 96th","United States. Army. Infantry Regiment, 382nd. Battalion, 3rd. Company I"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Buell Wallace Gifford"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/597"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["51:41"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Skelton, Red, 1913-1997"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_748","title":"Oral history interview of Catherine Wiley","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Iowa, Fort Des Moines, 41.5202677, -93.6157731","United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327","United States, Texas, Jefferson County, Beaumont, 30.08605, -94.10185"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Wiley, Catherine, 1922-2008"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry Rd., Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center","Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, Female","Segregation--United States--1940-1950","Race discrimination--United States","United States. Army. Quartermaster Corps","United States. Army. Women's Army Auxiliary Corps","United States. Army. Women's Army Corps","University of Georgia","Morris Brown College","Columbia University"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Catherine Wiley"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/748"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["30:21"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano), 1882-1945"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_596","title":"Oral history interview of Frank DeSales Murphy","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Camp Lucky Strike","France, Le Mans, 48.0073498, 0.1967379","France, Saint-Nazaire, 47.2733517, -2.2138905","Germany, Frankfurt am Main, 50.110922, 8.682127","Germany, Moosburg an der Isar, 48.4667, 11.9333","Germany, Münster, 51.9625101, 7.6251879","United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base, 32.38266, -86.35502","United States, Florida, Highlands County, Hendricks Field, 27.4566741, -81.3466577228957","United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, Turner Army Airfield","United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Fort McPherson, 33.70733, -84.43354","United States, Idaho, Ada County, Gowen Field, 43.557875, -116.22517983792","United States, Massachusetts, Bristol County, Camp Myles Standish, 41.9474841, -71.1417201","United States, Texas, Bexar County, Kelly Field, 29.3838847, -98.5861854258543"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Murphy, Frank DeSales, 1921-2007"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Civil rights","World War, 1939-1945--Aerial operations, American","World War, 1939-1945--Prisoners and prisons","B-17 Bomber","Radar","Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Fighter plane)","Atomic bomb","World War, 1939-1945--Refugees","United States. Army Air Forces. Air Force, 8th. Wing, 13th","American Red Cross","Stalag Luft III","Stalag VII A","Emory University","Germany. Luftwaffe"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Frank DeSales Murphy"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/596"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["54:04"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Gasper, August H., 1917-2007","Zhukov, Georgiĭ Konstantinovich, 1896-1974"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_600","title":"Oral history interview of Jane Cox Steele","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Georgia, Meriwether County, Warm Springs, 32.89041, -84.68104","United States, Georgia, Muscogee County, Columbus, 32.46098, -84.98771","United States, Georgia, Putnam County, Eatonton, 33.3268, -83.3885"],"dcterms_creator":["Gantsoudes, Lillian","Steele, Jane Cox, 1920-2007"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Georgia--Atlanta","Race relations--Georgia--Atlanta","Bell Aircraft Corporation"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Jane Cox Steele"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/600"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["31:00"],"dlg_subject_personal":["McDuffy, George","Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano), 1882-1945"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_594","title":"Oral history interview of John Glustrom","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Cherbourg, 49.6425343, -1.6249565","France, Normandy, 49.0677708, 0.3138532","France, Reims, 49.2577886, 4.031926","Germany, Frankfurt am Main, 50.110922, 8.682127","United Kingdom, England, 52.355518, -1.17432"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Glustrom, John, 1916-2008"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Civil rights","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--France--Normandy","Atomic bomb","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Ardennes","Georgia Institute of Technology","Emory University","Buchenwald (Concentration camp)","Atlanta Urban League","United States. Army. Engineer Special Service Regiment, 333rd"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of John Glustrom"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/594"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["33:36"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_209","title":"Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Kentucky, Hardin County, Fort Knox, 37.89113, -85.96363","United States, Louisiana, Rapides Parish, Camp Claiborne (historical), 31.07056, -92.54889","United States, Texas, Bell County, Killeen, Fort Hood, 31.13884585, -97.715048633985"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Conn, Lewis S., 1922-2010"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Lewis Conn recalls his childhood during the Depression in Georgia, as well as his service in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II. His father owned a drugstore near Atlanta University, but lost it during the Great Depression and died soon after. His grandfather was given a cabin in which to live in Coweta County (Ga.) by a Mr. Todd. He recalls his education, where he faced segregation and hardship, but also found support and opportunities. He recalls how living near Atlanta University influenced his desire and motivation to get an education. He describes how his principal, Mr. Lewis, helped him get a working scholarship for college. He describes hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and recruiters who came and took 95% of their young men to Warner Robins. He describes how German POWs could go in to the Post Exchange and the bars, yet black soldiers were barred. He recalls his response to the conditions black soldiers had to face: \"We did what we had to do.\" He also explains that some soldiers rebelled and were sent to prison. He discusses Eleanor Roosevelt's praise of blacks and how it affected their opportunities to go into combat; until that time all blacks were either cooks or in transportation. Even after they had become soldiers, they ceased to be soldiers when they went into town, yet they still felt determined to prove they could do their jobs. No blacks could become senior officers and all black units had white officers; Conn relates that some of them were good. Even aboard ship, segregation continued and he also faced severe seasickness as well as the threat of U-boats. They found a very different reception in Wales, where they did not face segregation. About six weeks after D-Day, they found themselves landing at Omaha Beach after another rough crossing, where he describes the evidence of the fighting that had happened there. He reports that his unit was scheduled to go in to liberate Paris, but was diverted away from the celebration and that many deserted. On coming home, Conn remembers that after fighting for liberty, they still faced the same discrimination. He describes how the Georgia General Assembly would pay the difference in tuition for blacks to go to an out of state college; Conn opted to go to New York to go to school and felt that going to watch the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Yankees was a bonus. He emphasizes the importance of education and family.","Lewis S. Conn was in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II.","INTERVIEWER Ok, um, just, uh if you could give me your name and where you are from. LEWIS CONN My name is Lewis S. CONN, and I was, live in Atlanta, Georgia. INTERVIEWER Um, how long have you lived in Atlanta? LEWIS CONN Off and on, approximately maybe eighty years. INTERVIEWER Um, where did you grow up? LEWIS CONN Well, I was born in Atlanta, Georgia. I stayed here until, approximate, around when I was six or seven years old which I lost my father. We, we used to own a drugstore over by the Clark and (Gownan) University Center as we call it now, which around Morehouse College. Well, during the Depression we lost everything - my father did - and then he passed, and my grandfather took over. Well during the Depression, and that you had no security on your money that you put in the bank, so we had no money to run anything. So my grandfather was born in Grantville, Georgia, Coweta County. So my grandfather said, well, look like we can't survive, that's what he told my mother, which I have a sister. Said, well what you all want to do? Say, I'm going back to the county where I was born, and I believe I can make it rather than just eat soup everyday, cause we had no food stamp. So they would bring soup and (rankle) the bell. You came out with your pots and your pans, and that's what you had around lunchtime, and that was the end of that. So that's four hour (prak and raves) in the country, Coweta County, around Grantville, Georgia. But I tell my students, which I'm still instructing, well the state of the day, that I'm a country sheep and a city slick. INTERVIEWER Uh, tell me why you say that? LEWIS CONN Because I have and give you some ideas about how maybe people live in the country, here we call it in the rural area, plus I can give you some ideas what I came back and forth to the city so I could keep up with what was going on in the city, how city people live and what they did. And therefore I have ideas about both city and the country. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me, tell me just a little bit about growing up back in those days. LEWIS CONN Back in those days naturally we were segregated. So naturally going back to the country we were still segregated, and so we had in it noth-, we had nothing. So, my grandfather knew a person he grew up with, which was a white person named Mr. Todd. So going back to the country we had nowhere to stay, but he knew Mr. Todd. So Mr. Todd said, well, Gus - that's what they called my grandfather, Gus (Ond), his name was (Guster Ond) - say, I'll let you have a little one log cabinet on one of my farms. Said I'll just let you stay there, free of rent, cause boy that's when you went to the country, if you had a farm, and you leased it out, normally they would charge you according to how many acres you had by the bale of cottons. No money was exchanged in those days. Whatever you had or whatever you produced then you gave it back to your landlord and you with the run up which you were the leasee, and that's how you stayed on the land. But my grandfather knew, cause we had no money, so he just stayed until maybe you can get yourself adjusted, as long as you want to. So it was a one log cabinet, just one big room. So with my sister, with myself, and with my grandmother, and with my grandfather, we stayed in the one room log cabinet. Now if I give my sister some privacy, I remember my grandmother had some quilts, so I remember her running a little string across to give my sister a little privacy, and that was her little room. And then I had a little place in the log cabinet, plus my grandfather and grandmother. Well we stayed approximately two years in that log cabinet in Grantville, Georgia. INTERVIEWER Um, did you go to school during that time? LEWIS CONN Yes. When I left Atlanta I was in, think the fifth or sixth grade. So when we got to Grantville, Georgia, the nearest school to us was what we called Moreland, Georgia. That's approximately three miles from where we had the little log cabinet. So we walked to school, although we had buses, but buses wasn't for the Negroes, cause we were segregated. So if you wanted to get an education, you had to walk to school. But the Moreland school only went to the fifth grade. So when we finished the Moreland school, and by that time we finished the Moreland school, my grandfather then had moved to what we call Meriweather County, which was right on the border of Coweta County. So when we moved out from Grantville, Georgia, out of that particular area, then I went to what we call the Lutherville Junior High. At that time you went to the eighth grade. And when I finished Lutherville Junior High, which was in Meriweather County, then Grantville had what we called the senior high. But for black people, Negroes, you only went to the eleventh grade. No twelfth grade. So I had three more grades that I want to accomplish. But where we were living it was five miles from where we stayed to where I had to attend the school. So for approximate three and a half to four years I walked from where we lived to Grantville High School, and the first time I attended Grantville High School it was a church. It wasn't a building. They had a church, and they called it Grantville High School cause the high school for the whites naturally you couldn't attend. But we had a bus that would run about a quarter of a mile away from where we lived, but I couldn't ride the bus, cause it was segregated. But we knew the people – my grandfather did – who drove the bus. So on some bad days it would be cold, freezing, raining, and we used to rabbit hunt together. The people who used to drive the bus used to come and use our rabbit dogs, cause we had the best rabbit dogs in the (hearing), so we rabbit hunted together. So they took a little chance and when it was real bad they said, and stop the bus, and it was muddy and raining, whatever it is, and I could stand right on the steps of the bus, and they would said, I'm looking for nobody to say nothing. And I picked up this person or whatever it was, so I got a little break there. But most of the days I walked. And I did that for three and a half, approximate, four years. Five miles there. For doing the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday and Friday that my grandfather would let me attend school. When I would leave like in the wintertime and the fall the chickens were still on the roof – people don't know about chickens used to be roostin', they didn't get up until sunup but I was on the road walking, heading to school. When school was out around three or three thirty, by the time I got back home the chicken had gone back to roost. So the only time I saw the chickens when I was going to school in the wintertime was on a Saturday to Sunday. Because other days when I left it was dark, when I got back it was dark. Now remember this, we had no electricity. No electricity. Well I attended the school in Moreland we had just lamps. We had potbelly stoves as they called them. Then sometime you had coal – you may of be lucky – but you more or less went to the woods and you got wood. And burned wood to kinda keep warm one way at cold days. For attending Grantville my last year, they finally put up a little school there, and they called it then Grantville High School. So this is when I finished, and I was only boy in the graduation class. And I do have documents to show where I think we had nine or ten students, but I was only boy, because nobody else wanted to walk. Nobody else had the desire for some reason. And then nine times out of ten they were staying what we called on Lee's farm, so they had to work. They couldn't attend school, cause if they didn't work then the landlord would run ‘em off the farm. Because that's how you stayed, you had to work, and in order to stay in the shelter they provided for you, and that was your rent, and that was the way they provided for you. Some places, rural area, they called ‘em camps, or groups where people stayed together and therefore you stayed on a person's farm, and you stayed there as long as you worked for them. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me why it was so important for you to get that education. LEWIS CONN Well for some reason a little like, by being maybe growing up around the Atlanta University Center as we call it now, I always had the desire to want go to Morehouse. Morehouse, I could see ‘em you know there, developing. So I guess by me being around an education center, it maybe dawned upon me, this is the way to go. And that's what maybe instilled in me, and why I pursue what I did regardless nobody wasn't going to turn me back. And I wasn't going to be and let no segregation or anybody keep me back. I will make my own what desire. And if I had the desire I believe I could maintain it which I was able to accomplish it. INTERVIEWER So you did end up going to Morehouse? LEWIS CONN No. INTERVIEWER No? LEWIS CONN I had the desire coming from Morehouse, around AU Center which we had Morris Brown, also Atlanta University. Now Clark College as they called it then was out from Atlanta, but now they are all in what we call a complex. Now it's Clark Atlanta University Center as we talk about it today. What all the groups was there, then I would always see people from the colleges and we had the little drug store, and so they would come in and that you'd get hotdogs and milkshakes and things like that, and that's how we made our, our living when my father here that in my grandfather passing so it would just make a desire that I wasn't gonna plough mules all my life. I wasn't gonna pick cotton all my life and that's what kept me going and I desired, and that's what gave me that desire to continue. INTERVIEWER And uh, after you graduated, uh, then what? LEWIS CONN Now, after we graduated, least after I graduated, by being the only boy, then my grandfather said, boy, what you want to do, you know we don't have no money. I say, I don't want to plough no mule. He say I go get you another one, I go get another mule. And we'll go lease, what, more land, and we'll grow more cotton and corn. He feel what we have more revenue, we'll have more money. I say, no sir, I say I don't want to do that. He say what you wanna do? So he got in touch with my principle, which was Mr. Lewis at that time. I played basketball (whither) we played, and I was a pretty good basketball player, that's the way they, they said, and I could run track. I'd developed myself running track running rabbits. Cause when I would rabbit hunt, and we only had a few shells, and they was very expensive – they cost a nickel, but a nickel now, back in those days, was like maybe five or ten dollars today. So in order to conserve my shells, then my dog would run the rabbit, once they were running them so long, rabbit get tired, he start out across the open field, I would see him come out the woods, I would outrun the rabbit and catch him. So I'd have to use my shell. And I'd just take and hit his head right on a rock, or hit his head sometime with my fist, then I had me something to eat. So that's how I got that desire. I figure I had some kind of talent. We didn't have much in high school to really offer. So my principle came and talked to my grandfather, said, well I believe he's a pretty good basketball player and I know people at Fort Valley College at that time, that maybe I can get him a working scholarship, but they didn't have the Hope Scholarship that you had then, didn't have the GI Bill, in which I was given after I got out, done, we didn't have all that. So, he say you know we still don't have anything, you don't have anything to wear. I say, well, whatever I have, I just take that. So I had one suitcase. So I had two pair of pants. I had one pair of brogan shoe. I had one pair dress shoe. I think I had two, maybe, maybe two sets of underwear. I don't remember having any toothbrush. We had no electricity. I don't remember having any toothpaste. I didn't even know what toothpaste, I didn't know what it was. I didn't know about, nothing about soap, and we made our own soap, cause we weren't able to buy soap that you sell in the store. We made what you call potash soap. That from lard off the hog, and you put potash in and you cooked it. And after you had soap from that. So what I had would fit in my suitcase. So we went on to Fort Valley, and he knew people, and they asked and they said, well, he's a pretty good student. Don't have all the facility in the school but I think he would do all right. They say, well we'll give you working scholarship, and we have two open for you. Said now one you can help and clean up the buildings once we have the classroom facilities after the class has ended and you can do what they needed. Then in those days they had what you call (nine horse). Now they served food, cause you ( ) food, as we have today. So they cooked the food for the students, served it in the dining room, breakfast, as they called it - lunch, and dinner. They say now he can work in the dining hall, but he have to get up before the sun, because at daybreak we have to feed and serve the student, and maybe he doesn't want that. I said that's what I want. They say why you want that. I say I've been getting up before sunrise ever since I've been big enough to know ( ), because I had to get up and milk the cow, I had to feed the hogs, I had to feed the mules to get them ready so we could go to work when the sun came up, and my granddaddy, boy, said boy go to work. I said that's no problem for me. Then I thought about, that's where the food is. I don't have no money. I don't have nobody sending me any money. How would I have a nickel or dime to go buy anything. But I'm in the food. I'm a have me something to eat. And I hit it just right, cause I had to worry about having anything to eat. So I went to the dining room – that's where I worked. So while I was working there my first year her name was Ms. (Frambroke) which was a dietician, she made me headwaiter. She had a headwaiter, but he graduated my first year. So I was just a freshman. I was punctual, and I was always there, you know, just doing what I need to do, stay late. She said, well you're my headwaiter, so as being headwaiter I was responsible for the whole dining room of operation, along with taking care of what we call when the president had that guest, and I was a headwaiter when the food was cooked, to go to the president's house to serve the guest. And that's what I had, and that's how I got to Fort Valley. INTERVIEWER Um, reading your, your other, the transcript from your other interview, um, it's a very interesting, uh, take on it, tell me, tell me, um, about when you and your friends heard about Pearl Harbor. LEWIS CONN Well, I remember we were in what you call old Jeanes Hall on Fort Valley State College campus. It was a wooden building. It's no longer there. It was destroyed by fire. This was where the men stayed, cause all those other two buildings were for the women. So, they don't have it like you have now, no cohabitation, no, you, co, co-habitating you was goin' on that we have today, so you had only one building Jeanes Hall. And we had potbellied stoves at three levels, and we burned coal on the three levels. So, I remember one evening, I forget when it was, that we finally got the word that we was attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor. And we have thought nothing of it, you know, we just say hey, here's another, uh, country attacking the United States, and, well, everybody went along their normal way, and we didn't even take for granted that nothin' gonna happen. But we said was a long ( ) and wasn't normal before we started seeing they started recruiting you know, and started getting people and having them come and recruiting for the army. And that's when it dawned upon us maybe they're coming here next. And which finally they did. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about how you got into the military. LEWIS CONN Well, they came to Fort Valley State College. And they said, and called out all the men, and said line up. They came from Warner Robins and they brought the buses and trucks cause they say we gonna get you all and take you back, or we're gonna get some of you. So they notified us when they was coming to the campus and we all had to be ready to fall out, you know like we was in the army cause they was coming to recruit us. Cause if you didn't, then you were put in jail. So they came to Fort Valley College at that time, and we all was there lined up, and they looked at our resume for us (men) and saw you know I played basketball, ran track, so ( ) that was the first one they say, fall out, fall out, they figure, you, you goin'. You figure you were in good shape and you were an athlete, whatever it is. But they ended up taking approximately maybe ninety-five percent of the young men off the campus, and taking them to Warner Robins and all what, to recruit them and put them in the army. INTERVIEWER And, and what did you think about that? LEWIS CONN Well, at that time it didn't dawn upon me about what it was all about. I just knew I was a U.S. citizen, and I said hey, I'm a U.S. citizen and I'm gonna fight. And they want me to fight, and that's the law, what can I do about it? If I don't do it, they say jail time, so I said, let's go. And it didn't dawn upon me till a little later on ( ) the army. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit about your, um en, enlistment, um, and training experiences in a segregated army. LEWIS CONN Yes, this is where I, it started dawning upon me and maybe the other Negro soldiers. We were recruited and when we left Warner Robins then we were went to Fort Benning. And that's where they took us there to give us further examination and maybe to give us what we call a IQ test or other test in order to see maybe what unit they would like to maybe put us in. So when we got to Fort Benning, then naturally that's when it hit us, we saw a lot of other white soldiers, but here we was on Fort Benning, and we went to our little segregated place they had for all blacks. Then we found out in another part of Fort Benning, here you had all the white soldiers. But when we get, and we be goin' through in order for examination, then they had a line for the blacks, had a line for the whites. Even when you went to get your uniform, you had a line for the blacks, you had a line for the whites. And that's when it, we started talkin', say, look, what are we doing, uh, uh what is all of this about? We getting ready now, what, to risk our lives or, they're recruiting us or go fight for freedom as they say, so to speak, and here we just like outside, here we come inside, figure, this is the U.S. army. Should be controlled by the federal government. Why shouldn't it be one for all and all for one? And that's when it started dawning upon us, we got a little problem here. But we figured least we had to do what we had to do, cause I had no other recourse. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me if you would about the instance, uh, with the, uh, German POWs. LEWIS CONN That dawned upon us. We heard about it before we left Fort Benning, but you really hadn't got into a war see too much with the Germans at that time, but once they put us in the unit, which was a tank outfits, then we were sent to Fort Knox, which is in Kentucky. Fort Knox I think is still there, I think is the army unit training center as of today, last time I heard, and where all the gold is placed, that's what I heard too. We tried to really find it but we never could find where they placed all the gold. But we figure that's where all the gold was established and put in Fort Knox. But that was a training ground for tank units. But when we got to Fort Knox, then they had captured a lot of the German prisoners. And when we would go to the PXs, after training, whatever it is, for recreation, or they had the theaters on the fort. Then we saw the Germans with the outfits they had given them to distinguish them from the white soldiers. Then we started asking, who are these people? And they told ‘em these were the German prisoners. Well they could socialize with the white GIs, but they wasn't admitted to socialize with us. They could go to the PX and sit down and drink beer, do whatever you wanted to do with the white soldiers, then they could attend the theaters. Well we still had to go to our little segregated PX. We used to had to go to our little segregated movies. And that's when it started being rebellious against some of the recruits. And we had a lot of men was sent to prison. Lot of them, uh, uh, what, I think, POWs, what it, uh, POA, what, you, in other words they escaped. And they was captured, so when they brought ‘em back they put ‘em in prison. And this ways it dawned upon us in Fort Knox. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit too about, uh, the idea of, uh, putting blacks into combat units, and, and how that, how you got into a tank unit. LEWIS CONN Well, this came about, I think, and I do have documentation here, which, one of the predominant Negro papers wrote an article which Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt at that time, President Roosevelt's wife, she commended us for being recruited and maybe being segregated, and would have a willingness to maybe fight without being too rebellious at that time. So whoever interviewed her wrote the article, and he named it Eleanor Roosevelt Niggers. And I have the documentation right here to show it, where he went on to express, and she expressed, why can't we let these Negro soldiers maybe train what they should be capable of fighting in tanks outfits, shooting arms, and just like anybody else. So that's when they organized the tank battalion. And I became part of one called seven eight four, seven eighty-four tank battalion. INTERVIEWER Um, at this, when they, when they, uh, formed a tank unit, and you were, you were assigned to it, and you started training, um, did the comradery, uh, you felt with your, uh, fellow, fellow soldiers, start to, um, really make you take a, a pride in what you were doing, placed within the context of that segregated military? LEWIS CONN It gave a little more, I say, desire, because we knew what had happened with other Negroes that were recruited, and they were placed in what were called the cooking units or transportation units. I mean, things that maybe nobody else desired. You figure, they not capable of doing or participating in. So, it say, well, they are recognizing us a little bit. That maybe we are capable if you only give us a chance. So we took it in heart and say, we're gonna do it. But within that whole development of our tank outfits at that time we were still segregated, so all of the officers was white. No black person or Negro could become, in that tank outfit, a captain, a captain, a first lieutenant, a second lieutenant. Now you could become a master sergeant, I will call a technical sergeant. That was your highest ranking at that time. So the people who was over you, who could really control you was still what? White, and we were still segregated to leadership. Well we didn't let that get next to us, cause here we were put in a unit, and we were going to make the best of it, and could we show, and we were going to show, that we could fight and do ( ) as well as anybody else if we were only given a chance. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit about your opinion of the officers that were placed with you. LEWIS CONN Some as we will have in any situation were very good. They understood, and more or less it was amazing to me, and I can remember Captain, Captain, whew, Captain (Bertstrand), I can remember his name. He was from a, a capital of South ( ), I can remember that very well. So he was from the south. He, he was placed as Captain, Captain over the unit and which he was controlling, so he was, he had a desire and he was pretty gentle. But we had other lieutenants that was in our outfit, and they gave us a hard time. And we had to take it, and we was punished a lot, because what we said and maybe they heard us say, and they took it out on us because they were saying we were violating a ( ) justice. Well we had to go along with it, those who were what they did had to serve time in, in the prisons camps whatever years and they had to put on extra duties and we went along with that. But overall, the captain that we had, he was pretty reasonable, pretty reasonable. Because I figured he said if we had to fight and we had to back him up or back them up then everybody OK had to work the other, and it came out pretty good. INTERVIEWER Um, so they, so you were eventually shipped with your unit over to England, and . . . LEWIS CONN Well, from Fort Knox, then we went to what we call camp in Louisiana, and from the camp in Louisiana, Claiborne, Camp Claiborne in Louisiana, then we stayed there awhile, then we went all the way out then to Camp Hood, Texas. I think it's pretty close to where the President stay in that particular locale as I speak today, but Camp Hood I think is still there. So it was a training unit and ground for tank outfits. They land ( ) and the maneuverability that you did in order to train. And this is where we had our last training at Camp Hood, Texas. Now if we run along again, staying in those very little towns, here again we were segregated. So once they let us go to town we had to quit thinking we was American soldiers. What, we were Negroes, so you had to go what called what? Negro Town, or Blacktown. You couldn't be caught uptown going in any other establishment – you would be locked up, although you had on a soldier. I (swear), as far as they were concerned they were going to enforce the law, although you training to go fight for freedom, to make it free for everybody here to have freedom. But still, they was, they was against you, and that was really hurt us to a certain degree. Same as Camp Hood. There was ( ) weekend, sometime I used to go on, cause you had nowhere to go. Especially little towns, we stayed on the camp, did the best we could, cause nobody would, you under-, it's, it's segregated, and we violated the law. Naturally they going to get the people who let you in. They had a place for you to go round by the back wonder, if you ordered something but you couldn't go, like a restaurant, you couldn't sit out and eat just what you had on your uniform, and that was really tough. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about the first time your unit, uh well, actually just you specifically with your unit went into action. LEWIS CONN Well from Camp Hood we went all the way, and then they, went to New York. Naturally they took us across the Atlantic Ocean. Went on the Queen Mary. I haven't been on it since. Maybe somebody give me a ticket and let me ride it one day. But they convert it to having what? The troops, and putting them in as they could with the decks they had. So, they say we going across on the Queen Mary. I didn't know where, where it was, I know they getting ready to ship us overseas for combat duty. Even on the Queen Mary you were segregated. Going overseas, to fight, for freedom, and we was given no less the lower docks. I didn't ( ) that little ship, never hardly seen one in my life, so all I know, they say, whatever dock, that's where you go. And ( ) whatever it is, a hatch, whatever they had for you. So you can us imagine in the bottom of that ship the, the rocking, the rocking. And I remember it took us three weeks to go across the ocean, cause we had to zigzag, because of the U-boats, cause the German with the U-boat was destroying so much of our shipment plus a lot of transportation cause they found out we were using the ships to transport soldiers and they started targeting them with their submarines. So we hit water one day, and you come out, you had on an overcoat. Two or three days you come out on deck for a little relief. Then you could be in shorts, cause it'd be converted back down into warm water. So I was a sick, and most of us was sick the second day for three weeks on that ship, cause being on the bottom decks you couldn't hold, at least I couldn't, and most of us couldn't, no food. I remember losing approximately twenty pounds. And going across to England. And when we got across, I remember we got off the ship, they put us in little tents first. Then they shipped us all way down to South Wales. Most people never heard of, of South Wales. Most people I talk to about England, they say South Wales, where's that? I say, well that's in England. ( ) South Wales. I think they made a movie called How Green Is My Valley, cause you had a lot of coal mines. I think they might still be digging coal from those mines down in South Wales. So they, that's where we relocated and that's where we had, where we stayed and were going to do additional training until they shipped our equipment over for us to go for the invasion or right after the invasion on D-Day. So we stayed there approximate, I know, three to four months, and we got all of our equipment and train. Well when we got there they had places for us to stay - the people in South Wales which the government had leased out for us. But by being black, or Negroes, we were fascinating to them. For some reason they told them that we were from Africa, cause in England and all over Europe people didn't know they had black people which they had ( ). That's why Africa was in the predicament as we've known here lately, cause if you look at the Africa map, it's broken up into all parts of the European country who controlled them, who controlled them. So they used those people as slaves, not only in America, in all those European countries. England had a part of it. So they looked at us as being part of, coming from the apes, it's what they was taught. So when we got there and this ( ) didn't know about it cause they was taught that. And therefore you shake the hands, but when you see ‘em running around and you see the tail it will come out, and they did it, until we educated them and they became to say, what we have been taught and told, it isn't true. So we stayed there a couple of weeks and the people would come where we stayed and started inviting us to the church, inviting us to some of their affairs, and came to know us as black, Negro soldiers all the better. And so we got a lot of a relationship with the people there in South Wales, which made us feel real good, cause we was helping them, cause they was almost destroyed and they knew that. They had to have help. They had to make, it didn't make what difference what color you looked like because they almost conquered by the Germans. So here we came to their rescue, fighting for freedom. INTERVIEWER Um, just briefly tell me a little bit about some of the actions you saw. LEWIS CONN All right from South Wales I was ( ) what, equipment that we ( ) all the way to where we had the landing docks in order to go across the English Channel. Again one of the worst experiences I've ever, and I, that's why maybe I don't go back now. Water, don't show me no water, cause it's like when I see it I get sick. At that time, ( ) D-Day invasion, we were about maybe six to eight weeks behind the first two or three waves of the first groups before we land, we, we was docked to go across the English Channel. Well that time the English Channel was still really rough far as the sea is concerned, so when we hit the boats again, the second day out, we all became ill again, seasick. Lost a lot of energy and so forth and so on. So when we got, and we did land, our first experience when we got almost to the beaches, and I remember around Omaha and other beaches which we did land, D-Day was maybe about a week or two or three weeks on, but you could see the evidence of the slaughter. You could see evidence of the landing boat torn to pieces and you could see evidence of, just the beaches was just full of all kinds of debris. We didn't see any humans floating as people but we saw remnants of where they had been buried. You could see where people were slaughtered. So, when we hit the beaches, and when we regroup, then that's when we fanned out and ordered to make our desire and get and start the movement of branching out. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about the first time you actually ran into the enemy and were in combat. LEWIS CONN The first time we ran into enemy, I can't call the little towns but, maybe about three or four days after we landed and we got with the second army. That was our support, we were support for our group the second army the seven eighty-four tank battalion with the seven fifty-eight, seven sixty-first. And we were what you call the light tank outfits. And our tank that we had, we had two Cadillac motors in it, very powerful. So that's to penetrate, and they would run sixty, sixty-five miles an hour. But behind us we have what you call the backup units with the medium tanks, with the ( ) only we had the little thirty-seven millimeter. So we were what you would call what, the penetrating group. Go out and make contact with enemy. Hope you make it back. Now if you don't we know the enemy is out there and then we send out the big boys, cause we know the Tiger Tanks are there. So that's when we encountered our first enemy was we spearheaded in the gap going ahead toward Paris. Went up, went up what we call on the right flank following the English Channel. So we were very successful. We lost a lot of men. Naturally we supported the infantry group. And what was so, uh, hurt me so, really, when I saw movie that was made in which Mr. Steven Spielberg, I think it was Finding Private Ryan, I think what, I think that was the name of the movie. Finding Private Ryan. Then he made, and the infantry who fought, and had on that signal, was called the Screaming Eagles. That was the group my outfit supported. And when them Germans would drop those eight-eights and shoot those guns, they had no foxhole to jump in, they'd jump in our tanks for support and jump among them. We were all fighting together. When I saw it in the movie I didn't see anybody that looked like me, just like nobody was there but them. I say please tell them to call me. Please tell me to redo it. Please tell ‘em I got darker ( ). Please tell ‘em I do a little bit more research. We was there. Finding Private Ryan. All through those little towns supporting that group. And when they ventured off to find Private Ryan, we kept on to the right, cause that where I, uh, now we almost got to Paris. We going to liberate Paris, they had told us. But, came from high command, when they found out we was, what number, black tank outfit, we got orders, don't come right, turn left, regroup, and stay on the front line. So when we got the news, we were devastated, cause we thought we going to walk down, what, the Champs-Elysées, we thought we were going to celebrate a little bit. Here we had conquered, had lost a lot of men, had fought, but we were diverted away from the celebration. And it hurt us. We had a lot of young men in our outfit deserted. We never did see them any more. We don't know whether they got with the French people and stayed there or they killed themselves. We don't know. We just had to call up extra recruits in order to fulfill, cause we get up in the morning and call roll call and somebody be missing. We didn't have time to go find ‘em, cause you had what, orders what, to move on. And that's what, ( ) again, here we still fighting, segregated. Here we fought and maybe get a little, what, celebration. Nope, diverted. And so, what are we fighting for? I don't know what desire we had, what desire I had, but I say I got a family, I got to make it back home. INTERVIEWER Um, with, with all the stuff that you went through, not only, um, fighting the Germans but, it seems, fighting your own army as well, would you say that the experiences of black soldiers in World War Two, um, pushed forward social reform at home after the war? LEWIS CONN I think it had a great desire on maybe who maybe looked at what we had accomplished and what we went through. Maybe give ‘em a little more momentum to see, well let's fight just a little harder, because look what they have done. And I'll try to erase what we are here this discrimination and segregation, that we are one for all, all for one. Now's the time don't we are in a lot of trouble. And have a lot of desire we have show that we are citizens of the United States, we should be treated equally, we should given an equal opportunity, those who can do or not. And therefore we had the desire. And ( ) that's we had a lot of men in our outfit like I told you were recruited off predominant black, we didn't call them black universities, colleges then, we just called Negro school. Well, by us having already the desire to want an education, well we wanted an education cause we wanted to come back in the various communities what, to help our other what, brothers and sisters that was denied and was segregated. To uplift ‘em. So it was just in us to, to what, to maintain that momentum, to show that maybe somebody was here somewhere along the line. So that's what gave us the desire in order to keep going. And let's wait and see what's going to happen. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about, um, how the GI Bill helped you. LEWIS CONN In the GI Bill, I guess I'm a fortunate person, because I've told you about my little scholarship I had running track, playing basketball, working in the dining room, which they don't call as they do like the Hope Scholarship and all like that. And I worked even during the summer, summer school, that's how I made my little, extra money, to buy my little books what I need to buy, cause my people had no money, and they say, you can come home if you want to, stay down at work, which I did. But come home with my GI Bill, that gave me a little momentum. Now that time I had married and had a daughter of my own, my oldest daughter was born. So when I got back my wife was still there in school. So I decide, and that time they gave us an idea that they could get us some barracks and put on the campus, and we could use our GI Bill to further our education. Which I say well here that's what I've been waiting on. That's what I need. So that's what my desire was at that time, to get an education. Here I have something now what, to go upon, to look upon, to work upon without me being ( ) from my family, and have something if I use to the best of my ability and use wisely, then I can make it, and don't have to do what I see others doing by saying I'm segregated, I have no desire, nobody going to help me, and they give up, and they are hurting and was hurting at that, that time. INTERVIEWER Um, thousands of school kids will see this exhibit and this video. Um, what do you want to tell them about World War Two and what do you want them to remember? LEWIS CONN Well, World War Two, you can remember this. It was the United States declaring war on an enemy which they said was desirable in order they want to conquer the world as a dictatorship. It's called a different philosophy now as we have in, like, Iraq. But, this is what I would like for the young people to know. Regardless how you are treated and if you live in the country, do the best you can and do what you need to do to support your country and come back to your country in order to see what do I need to do, that I can help in order to what, work out the evils even in my own country, or uplift it in order that everybody can have what, freedom. And have representation one on one. So that was my desire, and that's what I would tell the young people, don't give up. You can make it and have your desire. You may have a little more difficulty than somebody else but look at yourself first. If you and only you keep you down only you can have a choice to go up or go down. Don't worry about what's around you, because they not going to help you too much. You've got to help yourself. If you help yourself, then other people probably will come to your rescue. But you've got to have the desire. And nothing is too hard for you to overcome if you got the objective, you got the desire, and you want to do it. And you can do it if you set your mind to it. And that's what I would like to give to them as I did my education. You like for me to expound after I left Fort Valley, on my GI Bill? INTERVIEWER I'm sorry? LEWIS CONN Would you like for me to give more explanation of how I got my other education? INTERVIEWER Um, actually, I've, I've got just a couple more questions, um . . . LEWIS CONN All right, OK. INTERVIEWER Tell me, uh . . . LEWIS CONN See what, what, I'm just asking you these questions, I hope we're not on TV. But what became very fascinating, which I think the students or somebody should know, once I left Fort Valley, a predominant black college, a Negro college, how I had to get my other education, and what I had to go through. ( ) I just got through fighting for freedom, and here I came back to Georgia and the United States was still segregated, and the education system and process. And they hit me again. Here I am on the GI Bill. They didn't have to give me anything. All they had to do, open up the door, let me in. Give me an opportunity to further my education. But I was denied, because I was still what, was a Negro. That's how I went to Atlanta University, in which I got my master's degree on administration through my GI Bill. When I finished Fort Valley College I applied Georgia Tech, University of Georgia. They looked at my resume, had to give what, my race, denied. Denied, because of my race. Here I am, born in Georgia, live in Georgia, fought from Georgia for the United States, but came back, here I had the GI Bill. Still, couldn't attend the university systems for further education. So the Georgia general center and the Georgia government said, this what we'll do. In other school you pick out that will accept you, like Atlanta University, and what we charge at Georgia Tech and University of Georgia, for our points, or whatever you want to call what you pay for how many units you want to take. Say for instance University of Georgia say was a hundred dollars a unit, and maybe Atlanta University say it was a hundred and fifty. The Georgia government general center would send a check to Atlanta University for the difference, for me attending, just as if I was attending the University of Georgia, they would pay the difference. And that's how I finished at Atlanta University. I paid just what I would've paid on the GI Bill going to Georgia Tech or University of Georgia, cause the government supplemented the university, and we were still segregated, which floored me again. Then I finished university, and I would call Atlanta University, then I had the desire to work on my doctorate degree, so I applied again. University of Georgia, Georgia Tech. Again I made application – denied. Then the general center passed a law saying that any Negroes that have a desire for further education we will pay the difference in the tuition and give you a one way round trip ticket by train, cause you couldn't ride by plane at that time, and we'll pay the difference that we did here in Georgia to the university of your desire anywhere east of the Mississippi River. Not west, east. So that made me to look out, and I picked out for some unusual reason, which my people at Atlanta University, my, people of my, instructors said, why not apply at Columbia University, Teachers College, cause they had a good administrator program there, which we did, and they filed application, and I was accepted, from Atlanta University, which I applied, they got all the coordinates together which they said. So I attended that for five summers. I said that's all right with me cause that's when they had the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Yankees. So that gave me an opportunity during the summer, after I work and was teaching school, in order to go what, on a summer vacation like, get an education plus what, attend the ballgame, and have a vacation. So that's how I worked and got my six year certificate from Teachers College, Columbia University, which you call up on the Hudson. Wasn't too far from Harlem. And I'm very familiar with the Apollo Theater cause you just walk down on eighth avenue and you were right there at the Apollo. So that's where we'll go for recreation. But that's my educational background and more or less the people who had the desire, if they wanted to get further education, that's what they had to do. INTERVIEWER Um, just two last questions. Um, the first, um, what was the, there were of course a lot of effects on the, on the United States that came out of World War Two. What do you think was the, was the greatest, uh, effect, um, on the U.S. from World War Two? LEWIS CONN My desire from World War Two, where I look back at it and what we had to overcome, and what I was fighting for we called democracy against a dictatorship, but when we came back we had more trouble than the Germans had. For our equality, and for our rights, for all citizens. So I think that made our government take a different view of what we need to do in order to let the rest of the world know that we going to be a leader for what we said democracy, we've got to change our status here. We got to see what we can do so when we get our ( ) do we have what we can come back and say, do you see it, do you see our example, see how it works? I think it had a tremendous effect. And all during the rest of our what, development of our government, I think each time you had an administrator in, we got just a little more rights, a little more rights. Until you know 1968 in which my man ( ) the civil right act, which made everybody open their eyes. What do we need, what do we need to do to be what? And said we leaders, said this a democracy, this how it functions, this the way it should be? And I think all that alone, along with MLK, about him losing his life as he did, had a tremendous affect. And I hope we never get back in that rut again. INTERVIEWER Um, one last question. Why, um, black and white, everyone, why should future generations, um, remember yours? LEWIS CONN I think they should remember, and always, and hope, and really it starts, I say, from the family, mothers and fathers. Hope they would have the desire, because what you look like, what nationality? You should always say I'm human. And we're one. You're born, and nothing going to keep you here regardless how you look. You ( ). So they will look at that and say, why can't we live together, why can't we be one, why can't we treat one another right in our life? If they got that desire, then it starts in the home number one. Starts really in the early grades. You got to instill in these children as being one as a human. And you've got to maybe let the family, and mothers and fathers, whoever are in charge of these children, really come to let them know, this the way it's going to be. And being principle for school, I know they wouldn't want me principle now, I know a school cause, I know they wouldn't be allowed to take me cause even segregated days when I was principle, I was very adamant for what a desire in what I need for my students, regardless of who they looked like, which I was segregated, and teaching, but I got what I want from the board of education, cause I say, I deserve it. And I think that's what should be taught now. And everybody looks alike, everybody is alike, everybody should be alike, in regards how you think what you feel about people, nothing going to keep you here forever. Do let me know, please call me and I say, maybe I live to get old as Methuselah, which he said he lived, what, oh, ten thousand years old, so let me know and I come back again. INTERVIEWER All right, I think that will wrap it up. Thank you very much. LEWIS CONN All right. OK. INTERVIEWER Thank you very much sir."],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation--Georgia--Coweta County","Segregation--United States","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","Conn, Lewis Samuel, Sr., 1885-1927","Arnold, Augustus G., 1871-1957","Conn, Dorothy, 1920?-","Roosevelt, Eleanor, 1884-1962","Queen Mary (Steamship)","United States. Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944","Fort Valley State University","United States. Army. Tank Battalion (Light), 784","United States. Army. Army, 2nd","Columbia University. Teachers College","United States. Army"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/209"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["1:01:11"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_595","title":"Oral history interview of Marion Brody Glustrom","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New York, Kings County, Brooklyn, 40.6501, -73.94958","United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Glustrom, Marian Brody, 1916-2007"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Civil rights","V-E Day, 1945","V-J Day, 1945","Racism--United States","Atomic bomb","Segregation--United States","Yale University","American Red Cross","American Veterans Committee"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Marion Brody Glustrom"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/595"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["29:13"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Brody, Alvin S., 1923-1945","Brody, David S., 1909-1994"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_437","title":"Oral history interview of Samuel Floyd Daniel","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Algeria, Oran, 35.69906, -0.63588","Brazil, Natal, -5.805398, -35.2080905","Canada, Nova Scotia, Halifax, 44.6486237, -63.5859487","Iceland, Reykjavík, 64.145981, -21.9422367","Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain, 10.66668, -61.51889","United Kingdom, England, Bristol, 51.4538022, -2.5972985","United States, Florida, Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, 26.71534, -80.05337","United States, New York, New York County, New York, Hoffman Island, 40.57898605, -74.05390232869","United States, Virginia, City of Norfolk, 36.89126, -76.26188"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Daniel, Samuel Floyd, 1923-"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry Rd., Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center","Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["Merchant marine--United States","World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Depressions--1929--Georgia","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Segregation--Virginia--Norfolk","Liberty Ships","V-E Day, 1945","V-J Day, 1945","Atomic bomb","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","Seafarers' International Union of North America","Thaddeus Kosciuszko (Liberty ship)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Samuel Floyd Daniel"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/437"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","Mini-DV"],"dcterms_extent":["54:05"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Hutton, Barbara, 1912-1979"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_276","title":"President's Assembly, 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["This video features the Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed's President's Assembly, in which Dr. Reed meets with Bethune-Cookman University students. This video opens with musical performances from the Bethune-Cookman University choir. At 00:16:25, Dr. Reed delivers her address, in which she speaks about Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's history. Dr. Reed reminds students that they are the \"dreamkeepers of Dr. Bethune's legacy\". She encourages students to have a legacy toolbox and to keep the following instruments in their toolbox based on Dr. Bethune's legacy: learning, living, listening, loving, and leading effectively."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","College presidents","Meetings","Speeches","Special events"],"dcterms_title":["President's Assembly, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/276"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["digital moving image formats"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35747","title":"Prince Edward County: the story without an end; a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 1963","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["A report prepared for the United States Commission on Civil Rights by Dr. Edward H. Peeples, Jr., in July 1963. The report is based on interviews and other research done for Dr. Peeples' masters thesis, as well as further interviews and research conducted immediately after the thesis was written. Includes special note to the contemporary reader by Dr. Peeples."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Public schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Segregation in education--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Education and state--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County","United States Commission on Civil Rights. Virginia State Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_title":["Prince Edward County: the story without an end; a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 1963"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35747"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_580","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-01/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/580"],"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\nMemorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the seventeenth day of October 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date ), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand W HEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions ' hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on October 31, 2006. The tenn of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors A+ Program (hereinafter A+) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains particularly performance of African-American students. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 1.9 Confidential Infonnation shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors A+ on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is A+. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel: 3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices: Not to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AR including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payee Taxpayer ID Address: Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators sendees rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 10/17/05 24. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the tennination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No tennination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 10/17/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers serv'ed on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 10/17/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict perfonnance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluator s President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other its respective address as follows: party at If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fa.x (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 10/17/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: EVALUATOR Signe lure James S/catterall, Ph. D. Ic' ''/v-o 0 17-^ ao L\u0026gt; Date Date 6 10/17/05 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 10/17/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply w'ith requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How io Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities m this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots . As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewcr standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluaiion Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually' applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy cs'ery standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports 9 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ Ul Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data A10 Justified Conclusions AI 1 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations F + -h-F -F-t- F-F -F-F -F+ -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F F-F ++ 10 Informal Assessments 0 -F -F-F -F -F -F T\" + -F + -F -F-F -F ++ + -F -F -F-F -l-t- (j Formative Assessments (School Portfolios)  -F -F -F -F -F T -F + \"o' 0 -F + V F + + + F F T\" F F 0 Snapshots 0 0 -F -F -F 0 -F V -F + V -F -F V 0 -F -F -F -F -F -F -F + -F-F + 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include d proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry\nand Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculumdnstruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 10/17/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines: 153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 10/17/0510. 11. 12. 13. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. B. C. D. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). W hen the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator .credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summativcly against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 10/17/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of A+ Program This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors A+ Program and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primaiy questions are: I. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? II. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? III. To what extent does A+ account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to A+) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in A+ do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. theoretical model(s), B. Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program C. D. E. F. G. Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of ser\\'ices and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (200506) November 2005 DecemberJuly 2006 August 1,2006 August 2006_____ September 1, 2006 ___________________________Service and Products__________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will observ'e classes, conduct interviews and surveys, and receive test and other data from Sponsor__________________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing, Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 10/17/05Exhibit D A+ Program Evaluation Primaiy Evaluation Question: 1. Have the A+ Program (A+) been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description A+ combines daily arts instruction with academic subjects to boost both self-confidence and achievement. Committed to the Four Beliefs and Eight Essentials as the guiding philosophy for the program, A+ was built on the principle that every child learns better when his/her whole self engages in learning. Thus, A+ lessons stimulate all eight intelligences. Arts enrichment combines with the rich LRSD curriculum. The magic of the A+ program allows light bulbs experiences to illumine students, whether they learn in classroom groups or in movement, music, or visual arts lessons. The magic of the A+ program energizes students with the simple thrill of learning in ways many of them have never experienced before. Included in this scope of A+ is professional development for the faculty. Currently Woodruff Elementary School implements A+. Schools Name Woodruff Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent Africa n- American 21 235 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 86 17 10/17/05Proposed Design Primary Evaluation Question 1. Have the A+ lessons been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? IVhole School. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within Woodruff Elementary School, students who participated in A+ will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? A+ teachers will be interviewed by phone. A+ instruction will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in A+ lessons by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2004-05 and 2005-06 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The A+ teacher interviews and the A+ Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open- ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 10/17/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _________Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on student achievement? All grades at Woodruff Elementary School Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? All A+ teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All A+ classes School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All A+ teachers A+ teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A+ students A+ student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of A+ students A+ parent survey 19 10/17/05November DecemberMarch MarchApril MayJune July JuneJuly August 1, 2006 August September 1, 2006 Schedule (2005-2006) Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRJ2 and A+ experts\nand instrument development A+ classroom observations and A+ teacher interviews Survey A+ school teachers and complete A+ teacher interviews Records/archival data analyses Evaluator will receive benchmark test results. Evaluator will analyze data of benchmark tests, surx'eys, and interviews. Evaluator will submit draft report to PRE. Evaluator will receive feedback from PRE and finish final draft. Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. received OCT 2 5 2005 desegregation monitoring 20 10/17/05Cfiri^ecfed Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Education Innovations, LLC (hereinafter Evaluator), a Tennessee limited liability company, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHERE.AS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows\n1. Definitions For purposes of this MOD, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of .-Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. / iilaski C ounty Special School Districi No. I el al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A), which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Plincipal Investigator shall mean Steven M. Ross, Ph D., appointed by Evaluator to conduct the step-two evaluations hereunder 1.4 Formal step-two evaluations (hereinafter Evaluations) shall mean summative evaluations of the three programs conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.5 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by the Sponsors Board of Directors December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1, 2004. 1.6 Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Ev-aluator in accordance with this MOU. 1.7 Evaluation Team shall mean the Principal Investigator and the research personnel under the Principal Investigators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds. 4 8 0.'=: 1BI 1.8 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean the department of the Sponsor who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluations. 1.9 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable, not generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary' Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluations. 2. Evaluations 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluation Team shall conduct three (3) Evaluations on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A). Evaluator agrees to perform the Evaluations within a mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C) and further agree,s to complete Evaluations substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The three Evaluations are named below. 2.2.1 Reading Recovery (Exhibit D) -7 9 9 9 Compass Learning (Exhibit E) Smart/Thrive (Exhibit F) 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner. Amount: 3.1.2 Rate: To be Paid: 3.1.4 Invoices. Not to exceed one hundred eighty thousand (US$180,000.00) plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. $1,000 per day for effort. Travel cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Translation cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice, and/or reimbursable expenses, documentation included with invoice. Shall state days of effort for each of the Evaluations. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: Payee Tax ID #: Address. Educations Innovations, LLC 56-2288391 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3830 2 4/8/053.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Principal Investigator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluator's services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator 'dpro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 4. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the treedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at s^'mposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure rhe Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluations. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination 1 his MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 18 herein. 3 4.8/059. Indeinnincation Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or the Principal Investigator, or (b) actions by Evaluator or the Principal Investigator in violation of applicable laws or regulations, (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 12. Severability It any one or more of the provisions ot this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability ot the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 4/8'0513. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor. Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D Director, PRE Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387/Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator with respect to all non-technical matters: Cindy Hurst Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-5063/Fax (901) 678-4257 If to Evaluator with respect to technical questions. Steven M. Ross, Ph D. Director, Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-3413/Fax (901) 678-4257 16. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 17. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement ot Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this 5 4  (5Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator, 18. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date SPONSOR EVALUATOR By. Signature By: Signature Superintendent P?*r-e\u0026lt;te., /rie^ct Samuel Hurst Vice PresidentBusiness and Finance Date Date 4/8/05 /5-\u0026lt;^y 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock- Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 7 4/8/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process of the Little Rock School District is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 8 4/8/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will perform Evaluations of three programs of the Sponsor, viz.^ Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Compass Learning, and produce reports of the Evaluations. Evaluation questions For each of the three Evaluations, the primary' questions are I. II. 111. Has the program improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African- American (.A.A) as implemented in the Little Rock School District' Elas the program decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)' To what extent does each program account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step two) questions are 1. 2. 3. 4. What competing events or programs (relative to each evaluated program) explain changes in student performance? What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them What changes in the program do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs' How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluations, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A B C D E. F G theoretical model(s), Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the summative evaluations, data adjustments and statistical methods, format) s) of data for use in the Evaluations delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2004-05) OctoberFebruary October 1 October November 1 ___________________________Service and Products________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.__________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly._______ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track its efforts in increments of days or some portion there of. 9 4.'8C5Payments Little Rock School District Desegregation Court Mandate Support Project Period October 2004 to November 2005 Costs: Consulting @ $1,000 per day - 180 days maximum Actual Cost - Travel (est. $500) Actual Cost - Translation Seivices (est. $500) $180,000 * Maximum Payment $180,000* Plus actual cost of travel and translation services 10 4/8/05Exhibit D Reading Recovery Proposal for the Evaluation of Reading Recovery in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation (Juestion. 1. Has the Reading Recovery (RR) program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Supplemental (Qualitative Level 2) Evaluation (Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? J. What is the progress demonstrated by African American and other student participating in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and w'eaknesses'i 5. What are the perceptions of K.-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'^ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interx entions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. It is restricted to the first-grade and involves providing systematically designed individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds support the RR Program. Currently, RR is implemented by 18 elementary schools (whose .AA student composition follows their names): Bale: 82%, Booker: 53%, Carver: 53%, Chicot: 73%, Dodd: 54%, Franklin: 96%, Geyer Springs: 88?o, Gibbs: 53%, Meadowcliff: 78%, Mitchell: 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Stephens: 95%, Terry: 53%, Wakefield: 78%, Watson: 96%, Williams: 52%, and Wilson: 89%. Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: 11 4-'8/O5Printaiy Evaluation Question. 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AA students? A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1- 3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all 18 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in kindergarten. Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. Reading Recovery Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs Control), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: I. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05'^ RR teachers will be interv-iewed by phone. First grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR tutoring sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 12 tutoring classroom observations will be conducted. RR Teachers in-training will not be observed. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students is discontinued or not discontinued'^ RR Teachers will provide Recommendations for Discontinuing and Statement of Progress for Non- Discontinued Student data information on each 2004-05 RR student. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' The RR teacher survey will directly address this question. RR teachers in-training will be interviewed by phone. 5. What are the perceptions of K-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 12 4/8/05The K-3 classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Only experienced RR schools will be surveyed. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent Surv'cy will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items in experienced RR schools. Suinmary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Reading Recovery Evaluation Question | Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. Wliat are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions:  All grades I -3 students at 18 RR schools and other elemcntaiy schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) 1 What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schixil?____________________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program- specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued\"?______________ 4. W hat are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All RR teachers  Classroom teachers at experienced RR schools  Principals at RR schools All RR schools All RR teachers will provide program data for first grade students All RR teachers 13  Random sample of principals and teachers intraining interview  K-3 classroom Teacher Surt'ey (faculty meeting)  RR student data  RR Tutoring Session Observation (min. of 12 observations)  School records/archival data  RR student program data  RR teacher survey  RR teacher in-training interview 4\nS 05no 5. Whal are the perceptions of  K-3 classroom teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools K-3 classroom teacher survc\u0026gt; (disaggregated by 1 grade vs. other grades) 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Timelines Februan,' 2005\nMarch: MarchApril: May-June: JulySeptember: October 1\nNovember 1: Parents of RR students in experienced RR schools RR Parent Survee Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and RR experts\nInstrument Development Begin observations, RR Teacher In-Training Phone Interviews Complete observations, RR Teacher and K-3 Classroom Teacher Survey, RR Principal Phone Interviews RR Student Data, Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of finding\nto PRE\nReceive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit final repon to PRE 14 4/8/05Exhibit E Compass Learning Proposal for the Evaluation of Compass Learning in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evahialion Question. 1 What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) and other students? Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools J. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Program Description Compass Learning is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The theme-based lessons and activities provided by CL take a crosscurricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. A Technology Specialist assists classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 20 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 2 middle schools and 1 high school used the program in previous years. The AA student composition follows the individual school names: Elementary Schools Bale. 82%, Booker: 53%, Brady: 78%, Carver: 52%, Chicot: 73%, Fair Park: 75%, Forrest Park: 20%, Franklin: 96%, Fulbright. 26%, Geyer Springs: 88%, Gibbs: 53%, Mabelvale: 80%. McDermott: 62%, Mitchell. 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Rockefeller: 67%, Stephens: 95%, Wakefield: 78%, Williams: 52%. 15 4.8/05Middle Schools: Cloverdale: 82%, and Henderson\n82% High School: Accelerated Learning Center (ALC): 92% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\nPrimary Evaluation Question. 2. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? A. Quasi-experimental desist: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 20 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only*. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely using multiple-regression type analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test ot Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests. Iowa Test ot Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4- 8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1 What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) all school Technology- Specialists and (c) the lab attendant at the 7 elementary schools randomly selected for observations. All teachers at the 20 elementary schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a random sample of 7 elementary schools. At four of the observed schools, a brief (20-min.) student focus group {n = 5 to 7 students per school) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.) 2. U hat is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 and CL observation data will be analyzed. Recent information indicates that the nnddie and high schools are no longer using CL. The principals will be intei^iewcd at these schools regarding CL usage. If the schools are not using CL, CREP will work w ith PRE to modify the achievement analy sis accordingly. 16 4/8'053. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and Technology Specialist interviews in schools identified as implementing CL and interviews with lab attendants in the 7 schools randomly selected for CL observations. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents at 5 randomly selected schools. 5 What arc the perceptions of school principals, w hose schools no longer use CL, w ith regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? This question will be addressed via the Principal Interview. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question: Compass Learning Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLearning (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Supplemental Questions: 1. Whal are I be qualih. naliire. and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementaiy schools identified a.s implementing the program in 2004-05?  Students al 20 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means al ihc Compass Learning high school. (T)ic middle schools and high school may not be included in the achievement analysis depending on CL usage)________________  All CL school teachers  All Technology Specialists at schools implcinenting CL  CL Lab Attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations  District CL Program Coordinator  Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementan schools Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 Arkansas Benchmarks as poshest for 3-8) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as poshest in grades 1- 9)2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as poshest) 2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry End- of-Course Exams (as posttest)  Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Lab Attendant Phone Inten iew  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools 17 4'8'052. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ctlmic groups at the schools concerned? .3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and n eaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL. with regard Io past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? All Coinpass schools School rccords/archiv al data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observ ations (J randomly selected elementary schools) Ail CL school teachers All Technology Specialists al schools implementing CL CL Lab Attendants al the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology Specialist Phone Inlcn ie Lab Allendani Phone Inlen ieu CL Parent Suney Distributed to one class at each grade level al 5 elenicnlarv schools Principals at two middle schools, one high school, and possibly one elementary- school Principal Phone Inlen iew 18 4/8/052005 Timeline January. February: March-April: May-June\nJuly-September: October 1: Planning/Refmement, consultation with PRE and CL experts, and instrument development Complete instrument development and begin observations CL Teacher Surx'ey (at faculty meetings), conduct phone interviews with district CL program coordinator, technology specialists, lab attendants, and principals in schools no longer implementing CL\ncomplete obsen'ations\nconduct student focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE\nreceive feedback from PRE November 1: Finalize and submit report to PRE 19 4/8/05Exhibit E Smart/Thrive Proposal for the Evaluation of the Smart/Thrive (S/T) Programs in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question. 1. 1 .Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students' Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Sniart and Thrive by African American students'^ 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions' 3. What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What arc the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description The S/T program was designed as an intervention for S\"- and 9\"'-grade African-.American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. This program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in /Algebra 1 classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, the program served 264 students. Participants were offered pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year Thrive Program). Various local grants have fiinded this program since 1999. In the current school year, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools (whose AA student composition follows their names): Cloverdale: 82%, Dunbar: 61%, Forest Heights: 77%, Henderson: 82%, Mablevale: 81%, Mann: 52%, Pulaski Heights\n57%, and Southwest: 94% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\n20 4 8/05Primary Evaluation Question . 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students'  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment . i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs Pretests: 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EOC\nMath Benchmark Test. Supplemental CQiialitative/Slep 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students'  Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions?  Random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions. Approximately five visits will be made. Observations of the Summer Smart Program can be conducted in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to program participants. A sample of program participants will also be selected to participate in student focus groups. Approximately 3-5 focus groups will be conducted, with each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions ot parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  An S/T Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 21 4.'g/05Summary' of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Smart/Thrive Evaluation Question [ I Primary Question:___________ 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on student achievement? Participants Data Sources Timelines  All 8* and 9* grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 Math Benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nMath Benchmark\nAlgebra I EOC Supplemental Questions: I. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students?__________________ 2. What instructional strategics are used during the tutoring sessions?___________ 3. WJiat are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?________________ 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____________ 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses/ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? January', 2005. Febiuary: March-April: May-June: July-September: October T. October: November 1  All program participants ST teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra I teachers  Program participants Parents of ST students School records/archival data  Observations of tutoring sessions  ST Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  ST Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  ST Parent Questionnaire Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE, Instrument Development Begin observations of Thrive sessions Administer Teacher, Tutor, and Student Questionnaires and begin focus groups. Complete focus groups and observations and analyze records and archival data Analyze achievement data and complete survey and interview analyses. Submit draft report to PRE. Discuss draft report of findings with PRE and write final report. Submit final report to PRE 22 4\n8/05RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2005 OfRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGi-C\u0026gt; 'rvtc4ecl te Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply\n1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as w'ell as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which\n(a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors YRE on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is YRE. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel\n3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices\nNot to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AK including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to\nPayee Taxpayer ID Address: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein. Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 2 3/22/054. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications,, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 3/22/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations or (c) violations of this MOU. The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 3/22/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 3/22/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. EVALUATOR By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: Jame: 'ure 'atterall. Ph. D. Date Date 3/22/05 a 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 3/22/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply with requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots. As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports. 9 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ UI Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Infonnation Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data______ A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data AIO Justified Conclusions A11 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations Informal Assessments Formative Assessments (School Portfolios) ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 10 0 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4- y 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- T 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- V 0 + + + + + + + 0 4- 4- 4- V 4- 4- 4- + 4- 4- y 4- 4- 0 Snapshots 0 0 + + 4- _0 + 2 4- y _0 4- 4- y _0 4- 4- 4- + + + + + + 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 3/22/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 3/22/0510. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R 11. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 12. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 13. 14. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46,123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed infonnation is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summatively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 3/22/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of Year-Round Education This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors YRE Programs and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primary questions are: 1. II. III. Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? To what extent does YRE account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to YRE) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in YRE do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. B. C. D. E. F. G. theoretical model(s). Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2005-06) FebruaryMarch October 1,2006 October November 1,2006 ____________________________Service and Products_________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 3/22/05Exhibit D Year-Round Education Programs Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Year-Round Education (YRE) Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? '4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description Year-Round Education is a concept which reorganizes the school year so that instruction occurs throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks interspersed. Instruction and vacations are shorter and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Currently there are five elementary schools implementing YRE\nElementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch 89 88 92 91 86 17 3/22/05Primary Evaluation Question Proposed Design 1. Have the YRE Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? fVhole School-. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within each YRE school, students who participated in intersession will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular sessions? Year-Round Education teachers will be interviewed by phone. Year-Round Education classrooms, both regular and during intersession, will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Year-Round Education teacher interview and the Year-Round Education Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 3/22/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in YRE on student achievement? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year-Round Education intersession student participants within above samples Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? All YRE teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All YRE schools School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? AH YRE teachers YRE teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey 19 3/22/05Timelines February-March: March: March-April: May-June: July-September: October: November 1 Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and YRE experts\nand instrument development Begin YRE classroom observations and YRE teacher interviews Survey YRE school teachers and complete YRE teacher interviews Records/Archival data analyses Analyze achievement data/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE and receive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit report to PRE received OCT 2 5 2005 .OFFICE OF DKEGfiEGAnONMONirORING 20 3/22/05Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Janies S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2005 OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as well as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietaiy Information shall not include information which, (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of ind\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":328,"next_page":329,"prev_page":327,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3924,"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}}]}}