{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1658","title":"Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program","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":["1996-09"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School facilities","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program"],"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/1658"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) ''amendment and supplement'' to its second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in support of motion for temporary restraining order; Court of Appeals, motion to strike certain portions of the Joshua intervenors' appellee/appellant's brief; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in suopport of Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors to be heard asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract issue; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, brief in further support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, motion for order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program and planning and budgeting tool; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS SEP 5 1996 Office of Dss~regation Mcrn1Grn1~ DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT;  -------r FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZ~..RK SCHOO~ DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S \"AMENDMENT INT ERVEN ORS AND SUPPLEMENT\" TO ITS SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PCSSD adopts and incorporates by reference its brief dated August 5, 1996 which was served in support of its response to ADE's motion to dismiss or have this court abstain from considering PCSSD's second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the State. The PCSSD has no sericus quarrel with the State's description of the \"status of Lake View II\" as set forth at page 2 of the State's brief. The State's Exhaustion Argument Simply stated, the new minimum salary law, an unfunded mandate, substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate by requiring, absent a temporary waiver, the shifting of scarce resources away from instructional activities and desegregation related activities into a salary structure1  This law was imposed without regard, apparently, to the publicly known financial circumstances of the PCSSD and without regard to the fact that the PCSSD is one of four school districts in the state which collectively bargains with it~ certified employees. Thus, whatever policy considerations might underpin the passage of the minimum salary law elsewhere in the State, those policy reasons could not apply in the PCSSD where the District and the union have historically agreed (admittedly, often after much rancor) upon a salary schedule for all certified employees. 1The main thrust of the relief sought by the PCSSD on this issue is for the State to provide the funds for compliance with the law. This is not a case about administrative remedies. In any event, any waiver that could be obtained by the PCSSD is limited to two years. The impact of the minimum salary law will be into the next century at a minimum. That the passage of the minimum salary law substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate was amply demonstrated on August 19, 1996 when the teachers in the PCSSD went on strike. Simply put, to the extent that the existence of the minimum salary law was a key component of the dispute which led to the strike, it \"substantially interfered\" with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. For a further amplification of this cause and effect scenario, the PCSSD respectfully incorporates by reference the proceedings had in this Court on August 28, 1996, the ruling which issued at the end of those proceedings, and the motion and brief filed by the PCSSD on August 27, 1996. Because the granting of a waiver would only postpone the legal issues and the effects of the minimum salary for a maximum of two years in the context of a case that has been ongoing since 1982, the PCSSD respectfully submits that the minimum salary law issue should be considered in tandem with the other issues raised by the respective PCSSD motions to enforce the settlement agreement. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the relief sought by State defendants be denied and that under the particular circumstances 3 of this case, that abstention should not lie. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ; \"11 ' M. SamELlones III (76060) Atta~ eys or Pulas i County Speci' 1 hool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 3 , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP O 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: --------- DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REC ,V .. SEP 1996 DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion, state on information and belief: 1. On Thursday, August 29, 1996, the court held a hearing on the Motion of PCS SD for Injunctive Relief with regard to PACT and those of its members who were then engaged in a strike against the District over pay and other related issues. This hearing was commenced upon approximately fifteen (15) hours notice to counsel for the Knight, et al. Intervenors. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing desegregation obligations of the District and PACT in addition to contractual obligations of PACT to the District as contained in the Master Contract between those parties, the Court ordered the teachers back to work on Tuesday, September 3, 1996. Further, the Court ordered PACT and the District to mediate the disputes between them before Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator of the United States Department of Justice. 3. As ordered, the teachers returned the work on September 3, 1996, and on September 4, 1996, began the mediation process with Mr. Taylor. Schools were closed by the Board August 19-23; August 26-27; August 29-30. 4. It was clearly the intent of the Court's Order requiring mediation that the parties should mediate in good faith and without retaliation by the District against those teachers engaged in the strike. 5. Despite the Order of the Court for the teachers to return to work which undercut any negotiating position they may have had, the following relevant events have taken place since the order was delivered from the bench: (a) The District has engaged in pay practices which docked three days pay for every classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances on the first regularly scheduled payday. The District has announced actions to dock each classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances for five to seven (5-7) days in the second regularly scheduled pay period which means that there is a potential for many of the District's teachers on that payday to actually owe the District money. (b) The District has docked the pay of classroom teachers who crossed the picket line and worked on the one day that the board voted to hold school open. 2 ( c) Classroom teachers on paid leave of absence were docked the same number of days as teachers who were out on strike. Teachers on paid disability leave were docked the same pay as regular classroom teachers in spite of the fact that they did not participate in the strike. (d) At least one teacher on paid administrative suspension pending termination hearings was docked the same as other classroom teachers. (e) On the other hand, psychological examiners; speech therapists; support staff; and building level administrators were not docked any pay and no docking of pay is planned for the next regularly scheduled pay period. (f) The District is violating the master contract between the parties with regard to pay when schools are closed. For instance, the master contract does not provide for teachers to get their pay docked for such closures of school as inclement weather and the District did not dock pay after the 1988 Strike. (g) Not only are the actions with regard to docking pay contrary to the court's intent in its ruling from the bench, but also, the actions of the District in docking pay of classroom teachers is clearly retaliatory in nature contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (h) The District has made an administrative decision that all makeup days will occur at the end of the school year and it did not alter the twenty-six (26) pay periods set forth in the Master Contract 3 6. The actions of the District seriously jeopardize the success of the mediation process and the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan. 7. AH the Data phase factors for Preliminary Relief are in favor of PACT. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray that the court order an immediate hearing and, following said hearing, to make such temporary and permanent orders and rulings as will protect the integrity of the mediation process; protect the classroom teachers of the District from retaliation for the exercise of their constitutional rights; uphold their master contract; grant them attorney's fees; and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 4 ~ctfully submitted, '---~ I~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 5 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------D~E...,..P . ...,.C-LE=R-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is clear that the actions of the School District in docking teachers' pay is contrary to the Court's intent in its ruling from the bench after the hearing of August 29, 1996. Teachers' pay was not docked subsequent to the teacher strike of 1988. Furthermore, the master contract between the parties provides that there shall be twenty-six (26) pay periods during the school year and provides no docking of pay provisions for any circumstances such as inclement weather or other incidents or other circumstances that may interrupt the school year. Even though the Court undercut the bargaining position of the teachers by ordering them back to work, the teachers did honor the Court's Orders and have returned to the bargaining table with Mr. Taylor as mediator. This mediation process which the Court clearly intended to resolve the issues between the parties is severely threatened by the District's retaliatory action against select members of the teacher union in an effort by the District to crush the union or render it ineffective by creating economic hardship among its members. The- events that have taken place and the disparate impact of the docking of pay of the classroom teachers show that the District is bent not upon settlement of the division between the parties and healing the riff between them, but rather to punish the classroom teachers who will now have to wait until the end of the school year to receive their pay. The District did not change the twenty-six (26) period pay provisions of the master contract. Further, that some teachers at the next pay period may actually owe the District money creates such economic hardship with its attendant morale problem in the classroom teachers that the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan may be irreparably harmed. Finally, the rights of freedom of speech and association guaranteed to all citizens of this country, including public employees, has been violated by the District's retaliatory action. To remedy this situation, the Court should, temporarily and permanently enjoin the District from deviating from its normal pay practices without singling out any sub-group of PACT for docking of pay; grant them attorneys fees and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 ~tfully submitted, ~~.C)__J__ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCB Y Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 0 1996 Off ice of Desegregauon Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS APPELLEE/ APPELLANT'S BRJEF ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its motion to strike certain portions of the brief filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: - ... -.,... ___... .... ~ 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. ServiceMaster filed a response to Joshua's Motion on August 23, 1996, whereas ServiceMaster objected to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. On August 23, 1996, the Court granted Joshua's motion for an extension of time within which to file a brief as an appellee, and the Court denied, without prejudice, ServiceMaster's response, subject to renewal when the brief by Joshua is filed if circumstances warrant. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 1 4. The brief filed by Joshua is titled: \"Brief of Appellee/Appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, ET AL.\" In addition, in its Brief, Joshua took the position of an appellee and appellant. 5. The following references are made in the Joshua Brief with respect to ServiceMaster: Issues Presented on Appeal, Issue number 3, page 1 of the Joshua Brief; Statement of the Case, Part B, page 11-12 of the Brief; and, Argument, Argument B, page 17-19 of the Brief. 6. Joshua advances arguments with respect to ServiceMaster which may only be properly made as an appellant in the case. 7. Joshua was served with a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, and failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect to the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate - Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 8. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be entertained as an appellee with respect to argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that all portions of Joshua's Brief which make reference to ServiceMaster be stricken as they are prejudicial to appellee ServiceMaster. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 2 Respectfully submitted, GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and - - John C. Everett, #70022 EVERETT, MARS \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for ServiceMaster Management Services BJYoseS.M:owe~ry, %~ Bar #90l23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Portions of the Joshua's Intervenors Brief has been served on the following people by depositing copy of the same in the United States mail on this 9th day of September, 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 3 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 4 C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' ~-  - ' \"~As EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS .C._':_\",\" ) -A \") - --~ .)  - - ') WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-8'6- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RE: c erv~~ DEFENDANfS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INIERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 1 1 1996 Oifioo of D(\u003cSvc.grsgation Mon~or~VENORS BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS KNIGHT, ET AL., RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Response to PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief, state: 1. Admit paragraph 1 to the extent that the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT) job action continued until September 3, 1996, when the Court ordered PACT members back to work. 2. Deny paragraph 2. Asserts affirmatively that PACT' s job action does not prevent PCSSD from delivering the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. Asserts affirmatively that the job action is only delaying the execution of the Desegregation Plan and orders of this Court for the current school year. 3. Denies paragraph 3. Asserts affirmatively that PACT is currently involved in litigation involving the precise issue of PACT' s job action in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, in the case Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96-5788. .: ...... . Asserts affirmatively that PACT has filed a Motion for Joinder of PCS SD in that action because PCS SD is a necessary party to that action. Asserts affirmatively that they were not aware as of the date of the preliminary hearing of any breach of contract by the PCS SD except the Teacher Minimum Salary law. 4. Denies paragraph 4. 5. Denies each and every allegation ofPCSSD's Motion not specifically admitted herein. WHEREFORE, Knight lntervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCS SD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted, ~ . 0--L_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 7220 I M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0 . Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Stephen W Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S::? : ~ .:.~3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J,.\u003c .. ~c: ','/ i~:~:-.:? ~,. -. .=. ~ cL----~ WESTERN DIVISION B, -_______ _-  _ '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KNIGHT, ET AL.. RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Statement of tlte Facts L,_:-c .. :::--.r\u003c PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) were unable to agree on teaching contracts for the 1996-97 school year before the school year began. PACT began a job action because of the failed contract negotiations. Several parents filed a complaint in Pulaski County Chancery Court, asking the Court for injunctive relief Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, et al., Case No. U96-5788 . The Court denied Plaintiffs requests, and refused to order PACT teachers back to work at the time of the hearing. PACT filed a Motion Seeking Equitable Relief on or about August 27, 1996, in the abovecaptioned case. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 1996. The Court ordered teachers in PCSSD back to work on September 3, 1996. Argument At issue is whether the PCSSD has met its burden for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary .injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PCSSD must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and ( 4) public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). There is no threat of irreparable harm on the PCSSD or desegregation because of the teacher strike. The Eighth Circuit has given this Court much discretion to modify details and marginal issues related to the Settlement Agreement. 949 F.2d 253 (1991). The agreed timetables for school are details and/or marginal issues within the Court's discretion to modify. A mere delay in the school year is a detail and/or marginal issue that the Court can modify. Thus, PACT' s job action does not affect the Desegregation case in a substantial way, and neither does it cause irreparable harm to the school district. However, the Court's order that broke PACT's job action greatly injures the bargaining position of PACT with PCS SD. \"The right to strike, as an important symbol of a free society, should not be denied unless such a strike would substantially injury paramount interests of the larger community.\" County Sanitation District No. 2, 69.9 P.2d at 848. Furthermore, PACT joined the Desegregation case to protect its bargaining position. \"An injunction does not settle a dispute -- it simply disables one of the parties.\" Burlington Northern R .. Co. at 107 S. Ct.1854. PACT's bargaining position has been disabled because of the injunction. 2 Furthermore, it is a matter of public _policy in the state of Arkansas to allow organized labor to bargain collectively. \"Freedom of organized labor to bargain collectively ... is declared to be the public policy of the state under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 34.\" Ark. Code Ann.  11-3-301. Therefore, there is a great interest in letting PACT maintain its bargaining position with PCS SD by allowing it to continue in its peaceful job action. On the one hand, the Court's order renders moot the issue of the probability of success on the merits because ordering teachers back to work means that PCS SD has succeeded on the merits, only to the great detriment to the teachers' bargaining power. On the other hand, because the matter has been directed to federal mediators, success on the merits means that PCS SD and PACT agree to contract terms for the l 996-97 school year. This result would be no more of a success for PCS SD than it would be for PACT. PCSSD contends that it cannot afford to raise teachers' pay. However, the Courts have said repeatedly that lack of money is no excuse. PCSSD must be made to comply with Act 917 of the 1995 legislature for the 1996-97 school year. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCS SD' s Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCSSD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief Respectfully submitted, 3 ~.c:u___ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~.0--L_ Richard W. Roachell 11:20 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENN I t--!GS NO.083 POO9/ O20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL blSTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PCSSD's RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion - of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") for a temporary restraining order to prohibit PCSSD from \"docking\" teachers' pay for strike days, states: 1. PACT cannot demonstrate any of the Dataphase requirements lo warrant this Court's granting of injunctive relief. 2. PACT must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant, (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. 3, PACT cannot establish irreparable harm. It seeks money -- and it is beyond peradventure that purported injury which can be recompensed by monetary damages is not irreparable harm. 11 : 21 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS NO. 083 P010/ 02O 4. This Court has "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_266","title":"Business cases","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":["1993/1996"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/266"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I. BACKGROUND. A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision. and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper. a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale...SELL YOUR IDEA. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format, is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. II. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based onfacts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. 2) Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition. 1) Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem situation. --- --- \" problem exists. There may be a need to convince the reader that or a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. problem? What are the causes of the problem? What seems to be the real they known? Who is affected? To what extent are What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. you generated and analyzed your alternatives, the participants. Provide a written description of how Be sure to include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. factual terms. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in REMEMBER... the \"do nothing It alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on legal obligations, impact on requirements, finances. impact on personnel. impact on The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. should clearly make its point. Each analysis should be brief, but While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows be written in brief, clear, positive statements. The action recommended should 2) Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. E. Obj active. 1) Objective of the recommendation. objective of the recommended action, outputs. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal support. This section should includestatements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria an going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized, the expected benefits. are It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. Describe the impact of the program, If you execute this recommendation. Call in the \"Expected Benefits how will it above. programs...will something fall off the table, primary actors impacted? impact other Who will be the 2) Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? 5) Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs, including personnelH. and benefits, fiscal years for each of the next 1-5 should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. c) The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? 2) Forces Against. detractors of the recommendation? Who will be the primary recommendation? over? Why will they oppose the How can you minimize their influence or win them 3) Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. I. General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who. what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly orSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I . BACKGROUND. A business case Is a written presentation which Identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making on an issue facing the organization. process The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. this type of a staff paper. Qecision While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale... SELL YOUR IDEA. the purpose I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. it should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. is that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. also advisable It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the -- . Keep it at a high level...what fl'^^h '^snt them to know if they were running after a departing II . BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. YOU should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. , 2) Background information. Background information should Include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the be noted along with situation situation comings. should their results and short a B. Problem 1) Definition. Problem statement. The concise statement which defines and problem section should be situation. problem e.xlsts. describes the problem There may be a need to convince the or reader that a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. What seems problem? What are the causes of the problem? they known? who  ' to be the real is problem? Who are the affected? To what extent What is the magnitude primary actors in the situation? of are the C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. Provide a written description you generated and analyzed your alternatives. the participants. Be sure to of how include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the character1st' factual terms. REMEMBER... the \"do nothing\" always be analyzed as a possibility. ics of each in alternative should terms of impact: 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in impact on legal impact on objective, impact on requirements, obligations, impact on personnel, impact on The section should Include a statement as to why the should be finances. alternative was rejected. Each analysis should clearly make its point, while you should have supporting Information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that In the selected alternative. brief, but D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows The action recommended should be written In brief, clear, positive statements. 2) This Rationale. section should provide the for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. rationale E. Objective. 1) Objective of the objective of the recommended action, outputs. recommendation. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal statement support. This section should include and examples of how this program recommendation willsupport specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria explanation going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include an of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized. ........................... '   are the expected benefits. It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. If you execute programs...will this Describe the impact of the program. Call in the \"Expected Benefits\" above. recommendation, something fall off the table. how will it impact other primary actors impacted? 2) Desegregation Plan. Who will be the impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address th.? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? them? 5) Risks. This section should Include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. T how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. on the head Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. recommendation? count and type of What is the projected impact position before and after the Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs. and benefits. of the financial including personnel for each of the next 1-5fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) c) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. ur*** H. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. of the recommendation? Who will be the primary supporters Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? detractors of 2) the recommendation? over? 3) Forces Against, recommendation? Who will be the Why will they oppose primary the How can you minimize their influence or win them Confidentiality. J .*. * vx M A J. X u J  XVU DIUJUIU UCI fltfT 'want to Include this section in material for public You should determine if you release. I, General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should Include the milestone events for monitoring, not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. - - A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the Implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the Implementation plan format. Status quarterly basis. reports or are an established standard usually submitted on a reporting monthly or I z 7. y. TAiKOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 October 29, 1993 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Last spring, the Uttle Rock School District began a practice of preparing business cases on all budgetary decisions. The purpose of this business procedure was to help the district make prudent financial and programmatic decisions. The intent was for business cases to become a systemic process, and not just a temporary effort to get through the budget crisis. During the LRSD budget hearing on July 8,1993, Judge Wright stated: 1 am glad to see that the board is using the business case approach for the district to justify its expenditures. That is a smart thing to do. That is a prudent business thing to do and a good management tool, and its very much part of the budget process that Ive been asking them to instill as part of their system, as part of their school system.\" At the conclusion of the same hearing, the Judge told the LRSD representatives that \"you have made a lot of progress in terms of having a budget process. The business cases are part of this budget process. Youve made a lot of progress in your budget document itself in terms of putting it in such a form that we can monitor it. You are to be commended for that, but you have a long, long way to go. Youve just started. This is just the beginning of the process\". Throughout the spring and early summer, district personnel regularly prepared business cases on all major decisions. The LRSD Board of Directors even required employees to prepare business cases when considering financial and programmatic decisions for the tentative budget (Board of Directors, Regular Meeting Minutes, May 27, 1993). During testimony in the July 8, 1993 budget hearing, Mark Milhollen pointed out that requirement: The Board felt that it needed to have an adequate and working knowledge of the changes to the budget and they felt that the business case approach was the best way to handle this.\"October 29, 1993 Page Two As you well know, many critical financial decisions have been made during the last several months, and a tough new budget cycle is rapidly approaching. The Court expects the district to continue the practice of constructing business cases as part of a systematic decision-making process throughout the district. Therefore, please forward to me copies of the supporting business cases prepared prior to October 28, 1993 (the date of the last Board meeting) on the Truancy Program, the Romine Interdistrict School Communications Station, and the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research theme. Also, please provide a list of all new positions which have been added to the current fiscal year budget after those considered in the July 8, 1993 hearing and subsequently approved by the Court. Please append to that list the supporting business cases that were prepared prior to October 28, 1993 for the new positions. If no business cases exist, please explain why this critical support process has been abandoned, and how you intend to proceed during this fiscal year. Please forward this information by next Thursday, November 4, 1993. It appears to me that the district is continuing to incur expenditures over and above those approved in the regular budget cycle. The business case process has served the district well in budget planning and management during this past year. I sincerely hope you will continue, and even further develop, this beneficial practice. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, m S. BrownExhibit 1-C Revised LITTIJ3 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) tn O 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 ____(B)____ NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 ___837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,307.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 ___(G)___ REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C+F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,930.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,072,064.36 12,042,165.20 15,203,737.60 15,106,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,310,913.85 NoIe: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule: therefore, average salaries (or the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community,  -J ^2 , X.  . He is also committed the finest educational system in the nation. to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the elements accomplish that goal. the exception of present in its a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing, district advocacy and governmental relations. iL.i_ position would allow the District to reach into other areas that This have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. This person could also assist in meeting the District's commitments increasing parent involvement and community support. for A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement with the parties. This settlement included a a financial settlement with the state of Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, i financial settlement and present local/state fundings sufficient to implement the Concerns regarding the perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the first the plan. are not use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegrecation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. '/ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsecef:': t'f , /TA e-e/ LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 22, 1993 NOV ii 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mrs. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: Provided per your request are copies of the requested business cases. These business cases will be presented to the Board of Directors for their approval during the special meeting that follows our December Agenda Meeting. It is extremely important that we move forward with the Romine project as the new program can be an excellent recruitment tool. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Henry P. . Q lliams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 BUSINESS CASE GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and their success is directly related to the success of the District's long-term desegregation plan. Each incentive school, was required to develop and implement a school theme. In support of the desegregation plan and a commitment to total quality learning, Garland Incentive School identified a multimedia technology theme. Realizing the cost of technology and especially technology that is on the cutting edge, the multimedia technology theme implementation is to be phased in over a period of 3-5 years. A plan of action is required to implement the theme in a way that supports the desegregation plan and provides quality training and learning for students and teachers. This business case is for the first phase of implementation of the total plan for Garland Incentive School. A. BACKGROUND Garland Incentive School serves a minority community with students being challenged outside of the school by drugs, violence, gangs and many other problems plaguing today's urban school districts. The school is considered a safe zone and its students are proud and secure within its walls. The school's theme has been historically centered on communication and basic skills\nhowever, with the revision of the desegregation plan, the school's theme was changed to Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. Multimedia Technology combines text, graphics, sound, animation and video to convey information. Educational Research deals with using this new technology to locate, evaluate, and use information with excitement, motivation, and creativity. Prior to 1992-93 school year, the school maintained a Mass Media theme though the theme concept was not being fulfilled. When the desegregation plan reintroduced the theme concept, the school's Mass Media theme evolved into Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. A new theme specialist has been hired with the responsibility of developing and creating the excitement necessary to recapture the minds of students and to create interest in desegregating the school. Parents, community members, teachers, and the school's principal, established the goals and objectives for the theme based on technology. The school's Total Quality Learning (TQL) team worked after the regular school year to provide the basis for the program. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The myriad societal problems within the local community and the projection of societal norms are concrete issues that must be addressed in the educational arena. To combatthese problems Garland must implement a plan that is dynamic and capable of capturing , I-------- Viitu, IO the young minds and preparing them for a future which is constantly moving in technological leaps and bounds. To accomplish this task wiZZuc.! desegregation budget, phases of implementation have been developed. constraints of the These phases can be accelerated provided additional ! budge. cos.rain.s. revenue is made available. will provide students and staff with the minimum hardware, software and training n?fn .r multimedia technology. This phase will include installation of four computers in each 1st grade classroom, one teacher workstation in each classroom 5 y K and 2nd grades and A fi iTi on 511 oiv _1  \u0026gt;. Of additional six station lab for 3rd through 6th grades. an Phase II will install 4 . computers in each 2nd, 6th, and CBI classroom with network capability mstaUed for all computers throughout the school. This phase will also include ------------ ovuuui. lUli UlliUsC win ai5 ardware software and installation of an audio/video lab with satellite capabilities. A software library will also be established during this phase. D computers in each 3rd and Sth grade classroom and 3 computers in ead ng, Mat^h, and Resource. This phase will also include hardware, software and inct51 5Jfir\\ri  : - 11.  installation of an electronic library. installation for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 4th grade classes. This phase will also include additions to the software library and the construction of a new media center or the expansion and remodeling of the existing one. The cost of full implementation in the first year would be prohibitive\ntherefore this business case is written only to address Phase I of the Multimedia The current task before Implementation Plan.  IS to determine the best way to implement the theme in a way most effective for our students and staff. C. analysis of ALTERNATIVES The Garland community considered several alternatives prior to developing this plan for implementing multimedia technology into the school: Laser Disc players, CD-ROM drives for current computer systems, networked drives, and portable drives. Though all are a V\"\" to provide the students with multimedia nX tlior creativity. In addition, the computer hardware presently at Garland ranges in age from three to seven years and will not support multimedia technology. It was decided multimedia computer systems which could stand alone or be networked would provide the best solution. 2D. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the District implement Phase I of the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Plan during the 1993-94 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of multimedia technology provides: * Software for grades K-2 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum. The software directly addresses the key concepts of reading, writing, listening, and speaking that are emphasized in the curriculum. An additional feature of the software is the use of thematic units to make connections between the various subject areas, making learning more relevant, \"^ematic units are a focus of the District's revised curriculum. This software will be av^lablein all first grade classrooms with four computers each and in a lab setting for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 2nd grade. * Software for teachers of grades 3-6 that provides administrative assistance. The software has desktop publishing capability, but most importantly it provides portfolio assessment tools that allow teachers to collect, organize, and present student portfolio information. Portfolio assessment is encouraged by the District and this tool will enable teachers at Garland to implement this form of assessment. This software will be available through one station in each classroom. * A multisensory approach to learning that meets the auditory, visual and kinesthetic styles of students. * Presentation software for teachers 3-6. This software enables the teachers to produce multimedia presentations integrating video, audio, graphics, and text into classroom instructional units. * Software for students in grades 3-6 that provides opportunities for developing creativity and critical thinking skills through productions levied around the existing curriculum. This software will be delivered through a six station lab setting. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to better support the LRSD's desegregation plan by partially implementing multimedia technology into the Garland Incentive School. The district as well as the school needs this technology in preparing our students and teachers for the future. The technology used appropriately can recapture the minds of our young people, save the staff many hours of manual labor and provide exciting presentations to the students which will encourage and motivate students to learn and master the curriculum. 3Evaluation Criteria * Monitoring of student progress through technology and Portfolio Assessment. * Increased teacher use of technology which will also increase teacher proficiency in instructional and administrative tasks, including increased use of ABACUS. * Increased use of Cooperative Learning and thematic teaching concepts. * Increased student interest in multimedia technology and learning. * Increased parental involvement due to increased student interest. * Timely, detailed reports for conferences, administration. Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. * Achievement results will positively impact recruitment to Garland. * Peer and parent/teacher evaluations of student portfolios. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Multimedia technology can open new doors for the students. It has the potential for assisting Garland and the District in stimulating this minority community as well as improving the goals of desegregation. Multimedia technology not only motivates students to learn but it also supports the District curriculum in ways exciting to students and teachers. Though the initial cost of technology is always high it is not always an object when it comes to educating and motivating a disadvantaged population and creating an environment conducive to desegregation. Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance of court order to develop a new theme which does not duplicate any existing incentive school theme. 4Political Factors The District can receive favorable responses from the court and schools if resources are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing this phase of the plan is versatile and can be transferred if necessary with the exception of minimal installation cost. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment. Should the District decide not to support this system, the results can be very damaging and regarded as inefScient use of desegregation funds. . G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of hardware and software that must be purchased to implement this phase of the multimedia theme into the Garland School. Included is the projected budget for staff development of teachers. 5PROJECTED BUDGET FOR 1993-94 FOR MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE/SOFTWARE I. Pre-Kindergarten - 2nd Grade A. 1 st Grade Classrooms (3 computers per classroom) B. Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 2nd Grade (use of a 3 station Lab) $29,299.00 Recommended Package: Apple Early Language Connections School Bundle. Designed for use among three classrooms at same school site. Contains three Teacher Stations (Macintosh LC 520 8/160MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), six Student Stations (Macintosh LC 520 5/80MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), three ImageWriter 11 network printers, three Apple Color OneScanners, one Scholastic Inc. Kit, three Early Language Connections Learning Kits, and two days of training. II. 3rd to 6th grade. A. Teacher Stations ( 1 per classroom) $3,025.00 X8= $24,200.00 Recommended Package\nMacintosh Quadra 660AV Teacher Solution. Quadra 660AV 8MB Hard Disk 230MB w/CD-ROM, Audio Vision 14-inch Display, Audio Vision 14 Display Adapter Kit, Apple Keyboard II, ClarisWorks 2.0, Claris Works for Teachers 2.0, and Teacher Productivity Kit (Kit includes 4 CDs\nI) Apple Teacher Productivity CD w/Calendar Creator, ClassMaster, Correct Grammar, Make Test, \u0026amp; School Font, 2) Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia CD, 3) World Atlas CD, 3) US Atlas CD.) B. Lab for students and teacher training. Recommended Solution: 1. 2. 3. Temporary Lab Server (1 each) Recommend Quadra 660AV Student Stations (5 each) Recommend Mac LC 520s Printers $ 3,025.00 4. $1,765.00 X5= $ 8,825.00 Laser Printer (1 each) (Laser Pro 630) Color Dot Matrix (1 each) (Apple Color Printer) Color Scanner (1 each) (AppleOne Color Scanner) $ 1,786.00 $ 638.00 $ 936.00 TOTAL PRE-K TO 6TH TAXES (5.5%) TOTAL $68,709.00 $ 3.779.00 $72,488.00 CABLING AND INSTALLATION (EST) GRAND TOTAL $ 2,500.00 $75,000.00 NOTE: Inservice will be done by IRC Curriculum Specialist and Garland Incentive School's Multimedia Theme Specialist in addition to training included in bundle above. 6H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters will be students and patrons in the Garland community. Other supporters will be those in the community who want to see successful themes implemented in the incentive schools and those who feel that it is important for students to have access to technology that is on the cutting edge. Primary detractors will be limited to those who feel that the expense of the multimedia theme may not be justified. Information should be provided to them that will allow them to see the advantages of multimedia and to see the progress Garland students make after implementation. ___ I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TIMELINE Date 11/93 11/93 12/93 1/94 Activity Plan presented to Board of Directors for Approval Bid for Hardware/Software Opened Hardware/Software Ordered Hardware/Software Installed Person(s) Responsible Superintendent 1/94 1/94 Additional material/supplies ordered Staff Development begins Purchasing Purchasing Vendor Theme Specialist Theme Specialist Vendor Theme Specialist 2/94-6/94 On-going monitoring/assistance provided Principal 5/94 Evaluation of current theme implementation Theme Specialist Curriculum Supervisors Principal Theme Specialist Teachers Curriculum Supervisors 7BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on providing a learning environment that meets the academic, social and emotional needs of It all students. is further committed to ensuring that adj. students receive a quality education in a desegregated environment. Over the years, the District has begun to recognize a growing truancy problem which has an adverse effect oh the student's academic achievement and emotional and social development, thereby frustrating the District's ability to carry out its educational mission in the community. To address this problem, the Little Rock School District has joined in a partnership with community leaders, youth servicing agencies and the Little Rock Police Department to develop and implement a truancy pick-up program that should have a significant impact on reducing truancy in the Little Rock School District. A. BACKGROUND In the spring of the 1992-93 school year, a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth servicing agency representatives and Little Rock School District officials formed a collaborative to explore an effective response to the alarming number of school aged children and youth who are truant from school onany During school hours, school aged youngsters were being observed standing on street corners, in malls and other The number of calls on any given day. shopping centers or roaming in neighborhoods. from concerned business proprietors and parents to District offices to report truant students had become more frequent and added to the growing concern. citizens, In response to the problem, the collaborative developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867) passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 1989, which authorizes school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan, of this Act, '  ..................... Using the provisions the collaborative developed a truancy reduction proposal called Project STAY (Support Truancy Alternatives for Youth) and presented it to the LRSD Board of Directors for their review and approval on October 28, 1993. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION and In the 1992-93 school year. Little Rock School District elementary and secondary students logged 227,414 (full day) unexcused absences. School absences are excused only when a child is ill\nwhen a family emergency exists, i.e., death in the family, seriousfamily member or other extenuating circumstances in the immediate family of the student exist, or if the student is participating in a school sponsored activity that has been approved in advance by an appropriate school district official. School absences that are not excused violate Act 292 passed by the Arkansas legislature in 1991. This act requires that \"a child between the ages of five years and seventeen years, both inclusive, who has not been officially excluded from school must be in attendance. II The District also believes that it is necessary to require students to be punctual and in attendance for instructional purposes each school day. C. _ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES To address the truancy problem the Little Rock School District has attempted a number of strategies over the years. ___ __________ revised its attendance policy at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year providing for increased parental contacts, clearly defined court referral procedures and more strict consequences for unexcused school absences as a way to discourage school truancy. However, the problem continues and appears to be used included court referrals The District alternatives have worsening. Other establishment of a Truancy Review Committee. and the COURT REFERRALS The parents of students covered under the state compulsory school attendance laws (5 years through 17 inclusive) ___ referred by school administrators to the Little Rock Municipal Court. Parents/guardians who are found to be negligent in their responsibility to ensure the daily school attendance of their child/children may be fined up to $ 50.00 per day as provided for through Act 473 of 1989. This intervention's effectiveness is limited to those truancy cases in which the parent is clearly shown to be at fault for the child's non are attendance. In those cases where the minor child refuses to attend school in spite of the parents efforts arrena efforts, the Municipal Court does not deem it appropriate to fine the parent. cases have been referred to the Pulaski County Juvenile Court on a FINS (Families in Need of Services) petition. These Because of the overwhelming number of serious juvenile cases the Pulaski County Juvenile Court has to deal with, truancy cases are a low priority and are not heard in a timely manner, structure for filing a FINS petition '\"/h ths tint -J also a barrier because many parents are financially unable to pay the filing fee. Unfortunately, very little support for truancy problems is available through the Juvenile Court. with the Court is Unfortunately, veryD. truancy review committee (TRO Committee in the four in the 1990-91 cases for students restructured es Famili schools es. Families were referred to the TRC Municipal Court referral. HowevS S2!?a PPohlem supported by New Futures, as an alternative to because so few schools i committee has not been IS , . 3t bGst activated for the 1993-94 school The year. Ss2%\"ou?a'\\^iv\"ea - the abdication Of thS DisSat^s rSSon.i^^^^^ as- an- institution. Moreover the Distileducational of ---------District recoanizes __ this magnitude cannot be support and involvement - recognizes that a problem of thr^oJA? the LRSD without the or tne total community. RECOMMENDATIONS Through a collaborative a truancy reduction proposal was developed.  ~ ~~'-J youth concerned community citizens Its goals are to: Reduce the truancy District. Identify non-enrolled rate in the Little Rock School school-age children/youth. support to truant ensure regular school attendance. between the school parents of truants. stuaents to district and Promote broad-based sohool/oommunity oon=eS\ns?^^ involvement in addressing This proposal unites the Little Rock School District and the Little Rook Police Department in a unique SrtnersMo\" . _ *  During school vonfh T.7ho~W~\" stop and question school- determine why they are not in  area to provide documentation that their ateenr ^f students cannot legitimate reason, the wtrolSIi wi 11 center designated bv the t-i n V ^^^^^port the student to 4800 West 26th Streit. School District located age children and are not in school. in a public If the students . , their absence from school the patrolman will transport a a qfnHom-t- 'll District located at or by LRSD personnel. staff to ensure that the been resolved. . sihher by a parent/guardian All cases will be followed up by center issues that precipitated the truancj have\" Our recommendation is cost-effective because human suocort of tho _____ oecause J of the fiscal and It provides a high support of parents, the business community leaders\nand it will Prese^^^^onsisteni support of the partners\nstrategy which has the and other will present visibility communitymessage to students and parents that school truancy will not be tolerated in the District. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Truancy Reduction Program is to reduce the truancy rate of LRSD students K4.4. J T ---------- covered by the Arkansas Compulsory School Attendance Law (ages 5 through 17 years, inclusive). inclusive). EVALUATION CRITERIA The LRSD will evaluate the program to effectiveness by using the following criteria: determine its F. decrease in truancy rate of targeted students when compared with 1992-93 attendance data\nimproved communication between parents and the school district as measured through parent contacts and structured feedback\nincreased support and involvement of the community in addressing school/community issues and concerns. IMPACT ANALYSIS expected that the implementation of XU xs. ejipeccea mat me a collaborative truancy will have a positive impact on both the school and community. The community will be reassured of ths n T chr -1 /-\u0026lt;- / o - The community will be reassured of the District's commitment to the education of all children. project will open the door for other collaborative between the District and The success of this future. opportunities community groups as they arise in the Desegregation Plan The education of all students in the LRSD cornerstones desegregation plan. of the implementation of this is one of the Successful program will support this commitment. Court Orders No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to act aggressively to address  ^^g^^ssively to address the truancy problem would be perceived negatively by the community. Risks Inability to sustain funding for the may be an issue that will need addressing. program in future years Timing The truancy program is  - X.' -- currently being implemented with excellent support from the Little Rock Police and other community partners. Department Failure to continue the programG. would cause the District to loose valuable community support in resolving response. a problem that requires RESOURCE ANALYSIS united community a The District share of the costs for implementing this program through the end of the 1993-94 school year are projected to be $58,943 to cover personnel, transportation, utilities, equipment and supplies. Our community partners have pledged $63,840 to support the program financially and are also assisting in the recruitment and training of the volunteer staff. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this project are church leaders, the Little Rock Police Department, youth servicing agencies. New concerned Futures and other citizens. These supporters recognize the need for a total community response to the education of all children and youth in the city of Little Rock. Detractors to the program may be parents or other citizens who have misinformation regarding the programs goals and a lack of understanding of the role to be played by the Little Rock Police Department. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The assistant superintendent for secondary schools and the director of pupil services have primary responsibility for program implementation and monitoring and to ensure that objectives are accomplished as outlined in the proposal. Monthly status and written quarterly reports will be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.BUSINESS CASE ROMINE INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMMUNICATION STATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Information Age of today and the future requires new approaches to education and classroom environment. The amount of factual information available to us increases at a more rapid rate than we can\npossibly learn and retain by using traditional educational methods. Students today need to know where and how to obtain information, evaluate which pieces of information are relevant to the problem they are trying to solve, and be able to apply the problem-solving processes necessary to guide their group to a successful conclusion. The Communication Station proposal seeks to create opportunities for teachers and students that are aimed at bringing information and technology together. A. Background The success of Romine Interdistrict School hinges upon student opportunities and staff competence and preparation. The Communication Station proposal that engages in new ideas and approaches actually provides profitable learning experiences for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. In a very unique way, the Communication Station allows video and audio capabilities in the classroom via satellite technology. The importance of keeping up with the latest technological advances benefits all, but also allows us to applaud the efforts of the Little Rock School District, especially Romine Interdistrict Elementary School. The effectiveness of this proposal will certainly help parents of the greater Little Rock metropolitan area to realize just how attractive Romine is. This is definitely the answer to one aspect of interdistrict schools in the Little Rock School District. It simply has to lead to more success. B. Analysis of Alternatives The present and future benefits of a program rich in staff development opportunities and authentic student achievement experiences cannot be served by traditional educational methods. We are convinced that we must sustain and improve upon the difference that is now the perception of our work with students. The chance of doing so only happens through a willingness to totally and completely ready our students for the 21st century. This is virtually impossible without this significant change.C. Objective The objective of the preceding recommendations is to adequately support and enhance the critical aspects of the Communication Station and make other curricula efforts easier for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. D. Expected Benefits The positive effects of the Communication Station fit the goals and objectives of our school theme: \"Computer Science and Basic Skills.\"  Problem Solving processes tied to familiar skills in math, language arts, science, and social studies\n Regular opportunities for childrens optimum learning (higher-order thinking skills, communication, leadership, and study skills)\n Interactive instructional software/hardware technology (satellite communications)\n Cooperative learning ventures/projects\n Staff development and training\nand  Technical support for students, teachers, and administrators E. Impact Analysis The Communication Station is designed to provide the instructional staff with tools to enhance their positions as instructional leaders. Teachers will use a state-of-the-art delivery system to conference with field experts, to participate in thematic instruction, and to share materials and ideas with each other. Teachers are likely to explore many more opportunities for students because of credible leadership coming from on-site specialists, field experts, and other teachers across the nation. The proposal also allows the technology to become a tool for students, as well. Finally, it should be noted that the promise of Romine Interdistrict Elementary School can be significantly increased by this effort. 2F. Resources Analysis Existing staff members with an understanding of the schools theme, curricula expectations, computer technology, and the principles of the Communication Station are willing to take on the challenges basic to new staff positions. G. Force Field Analysis Support for the Communication Station and other recommendations will be nothing less than great. Clearly, anticipated excitement will be widespread, enabling all teachers, students, parents, district administrative staff, school board members, and members of the community to support and share in what will be accomplished by full participation in this proposal. Again, we are convinced that this is the best professional decision to be made on behalf of the students of the 21st century\nfortunately, we are talking about the students of Romine. Educational researchers all over the country acknowledge that such programs are highly valued. For this reason, school districts are sufficiently applying and devoting dollars to this kind of refinement and development. We do not want to bypass this opportunity. 3BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community. the finest educational system in the nation. He is also committed to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the accomplish that goal. the exception elements present in its of a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing. district advocacy and governmental relations. This position would allow the District to reach into other areas that have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. commitments support. This person could also assist in meeting the District's for increasing parent involvement and community A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement included a a settlement with the parties. financial settlement with the This Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, financial settlement and present local/state fundings state of first the to implement the are not the sufficient plan. Concerns regarding perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegregation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. / 1\n^ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsODM @1002/002 CKCBBBS I Little Rock School District RELEASE December 2,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;SB\u0026gt;jiUilji The Little Rock School District has nieetingtobeheldi scheduled a special board agenda meeting at 5 ^mediately foUovrfng e regularly scheduled includes the following topics: agenda 1. Discussion of e new LRSD Organizational Chart 2. Nurses Agreement Koudue to the Superintendent) ' position for the assistant 4-Format for agenda meetings. ^rTTiT 810 West Markham Street Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. I also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.05 1 I1 i i i I i i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1 March 31, 1994 ! II TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ke nr intendent II SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases I ji j I1 Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994. I I I I I I I 1i I II 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.02 1 I I I ! 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I  INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (Required - Double Funding) 1. 2. SCHOOL Franklin ITEM AMOUNT I ! 1 i Rockefeller 3. . Rightsell 4. Mitchell 5, Garland 6. Stephens Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Teciinology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 O' J I I I I I I I i i04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.03 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY II  DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE (Required - Need Funding) t I 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. department English Math/Lang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science ITEM English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science amount S 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 25,000 o. Total $139,480 * Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) I I04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.04 [ \u0026lt; i i j i i 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE I i i (Not Required'But Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHOOT. ITEM AMOUNT L Science/Math (K-3) Science/Math Readin g S 18,000 2. t I 1 o. 4. 5. Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language { I I Foreign Lang. K-12 Revision (UALR) Secretary Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 S 54,000 GRAND TOTAL $193,480 i I i i I I 1 f I04-04-1994 11:15AM FROM TO 3710100 P.01 Arkansas Democrat^^azette FAX NUMBER: NEWS ROOM: (501) 372-3908 DATE: TO: FAX NUMBER: NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: H pgge-S MESSAGE: 2lka_6jvLin2j4L_:OLe lArrAhUrin Xu\u0026lt; rrnijgi CAPiTOLAIMD SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  little rock, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Dennis Glasaow/Carol Green BUSIINESS CASE Applied Biology and Chemistry/VocationaI Education PROGRAM STATUS\nX Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS: Q Yes No  NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT: Q Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 (Carl Perkins Funds) RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 Submitted by Superintendent HPWnkiySTARPT.BC 105BUSINESS CASE APPLIED BIOLOGY AND CHEmSTRY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Act 980 of 1991 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly creates state statutory requirements for the establishment of a Tech Prep By regulation the State core curriculum for high school pT-ngr-ams. Board of Education identified the minimum core of courses for technical preparation. Three units of science are required. One or two of these units can be earned by taking applied science courses that are the equivalent of college preparatory courses. Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II (a two year sequence) are the equivalent of biology. Act 969 of 1993 mandates that students who graduate from high school after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum institutions for public four-year unconditional to . of higher education. Act establishes qualifications for valedictorian and salutatorian and distinction admission 1117 as an honor graduate of a high school. These qualification include successful completion of either the college preparation core curriculxan or the technical preparation core curriculum. The Little Rock School District must have in place a technical preparation core curriculum for ninth grade students in the 1993-94 Applied Math I was implemented for ninth grade students this school year (1993-94). Applied Math II and Applied Biology and Chemistry I will need to be implemented beginning in Finally, Applied Biology and school year. 1994-95 for tenth grade students. Chemistry II will need to be implemented in 1995-96 for eleventh grade students to complete the State mandated applied math and science sequence. A. BACKGROUND Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. The Tech Prep program was first conceived to better prepare students for the dememds of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, skills. science, communication, and technology It has since been funded through the federal Carl Perkins Act and endorsed by employer communities around the country. Tech Prep/Applied Academics is consistent with the type of educational reform advocated by the SCANS Report (Secretary's Council on Achieving Necessary Skills): skills is 'in context'. . n \"The most effective way of teaching At the same time that the federal government was advocating restructuring in vocational, mathematics and science education, the Arkansas General Assembly was also mandated restructuring. Act 980 of 1991 requires that schools establish a Tech Prep core 106curriculum. The Tech Prep program was adopted to eliminate the artificial division between \"academic\" and \"vocational.\" The competencies of all students in math, communication, science and technology must be raised regardless of whether students are college-bound or work-bound according to the Tech Prep pyngr-am philosophy. Tech Prep is considered a \"dual-purpose program of study,\" meaning that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational or technical program, a college preparatory program or a combination of the two. The regulations that accompany Arkansas Act 980 of 1991 identified the math and science courses that comprise the College Prep and Technical Prep core curriculum. - -  ... - - In both Math and Science, an applied academics course sequence can substitute for traditional college prepeuratory courses in the Tech Prep core curriculum For instance Applied Math I and Applied Math II are the equivalent of Algebra I and may be taken to meet the Algebra I graduation requirement. Likewise, Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II are the equivalent of biology and can be taken to meet the biology graduation requirement. courses Applied Math and Applied Biology and Chemistry are developed by the Center for Occupational Research and Development Forty four states, including Arkansas, have participated The CORD (CORD). in the consortium to implement these two courses. curricula are the only ones accepted by the State of Arkansas ^d ?funded through the Carl Perkins Act. The Applied Math and Applied 'Biology and Chemistry curricula developed by CORD are competencybased, occupationally related, and have the materials packaged in modular form. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION An applied science course must be implemented in 1994-95 to conform Currently, Applied Math I is offered at the ninth   (Applied Math II) will be There is no approved applied science to State Law. grade level and the second year implemented in 1994-95. course that is part of the LRSD Program of Studies. c. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4 The acceptable alternative is to begin an applied science sequence The second year of the sequence can be  If applied science sequence is not implemented, the District will lose federal and state fxinds and lose State accreditation. In offering the applied science sequence, two approved courses are available\nApplied Biology and Chemistry (ABC) I and II and Principles of Technology (PT) I and II. ABC I and II cire the equivalent of and substitute for biology. PT I and II are the equivalent of and sxxbstitute for physics. beginning in 1994-95. implemented in 1995-96. ABC I and II can be offered either in grades 9-10 or grades 10-11. A grades 9-10 implementation would require almost twice as much equipment and supplies since grade 9 is in junior high and grade 10 107Much of the ABC I equipment and supplies and ABC II equipment and supplies are the same. is in senior high. The duplication of equipment and supplies could be eliminated if ABC I and II are both offered at the high school level. The high schools already have much of the equipment for ABC I and II (e.g., microscopes, safety The remainder of the equipment and supplies can be equipment). purchased with Carl Perkins start-up funds during the 1993-94 school year. Carl Perkins funds cannot be used after 1993-94. Many certified biology teachers are available to teach ABC I and II after they receive special training the summer. PT I and II can be offered either in grades 10-11 or grades 11-12. Neither arrangement would be more expensive than the other. All five high schools have some PT equipment and supplies since Unified Physics, an existing District course, uses some of the PT units. The PT component of Unified Physics has not been supported by the majority of the physics teachers in the District. Physics teachers are in short supply and numerous extra sections would necessitate additional staff. Carl Perkins The equipment and supplies for PT I and II can be purchased with Carl Perkins fxinds during 1993-94. fiinds cannot be used after 1993-94 for this purpose. D. RECO ATTON The Little Rock School District administration recommends that Applied Biology and Chemistry I be offered in the tenth grade beginning with the 1994-95 school year with Applied Biology and Chemistry II to follow in the eleventh grade in 1995-96. Current year Carl Perkins (1993-94) fluids will be used to purchase start-up materials and equipment for both courses. E. OBJECTIVE Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II will be implemented in 1994- 95 and 1995-96 respectively to meet State and Federal requirements and to provide students with the academic skills to have several career and/or training options upon graduation. The objective supports District goals #1,2,3, and 4. The applied science program will help students grow academically (goal #1) while teaching skills in the context of real life situations. The Tech Prep concept is that all students must be prepared as contributors to society (goal #3) by providing them with a rigorous program of study that will give them career and training options upon graduation. Outside funding will be used to support the program (goal #4) through the Carl Perkins Act. Finally, teachers of the applied science program will receive special training during the summer of 1994 (goal #2). 108F. evaluation criteria Implementation of the Applied Biology and Chemistry program will be evaluated by: 1. 2. 3. Students will enroll in ABC I during the 1994-95 school year and ABC II during the 1995-96 school year. ABC teachers will receive summer training. ABC students will also take a unit of chemistry or physics. Post graduation surveys by Pupil Services will indicate that the number of students who go to college or technical school after graduation has increased. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.) Progreim The Applied Science program will allow the District to comply with State and Federal requirements. It will give students a relevant, hands-on science course that will prepare . graduation. them to take advantage of options after 4. The Applied Science Program will infuse tens of thousands of dollars of science equipment auid supplied into our The high schools using federal Carl Perkins funds, program will likely negatively impact a science course currently offered called \"Science Technology.\" \"Science Technology\" is an applied course but is not sanctioned by the State or Federal Government as a Tech Prep course. \"Science Technology\" will probably suffer from sparse enrollment and be deleted from the District's science curriculum.after ABC becomes fully operational. 2.) Desegregation Plan The Applied Science program will not negatively impact the Desegregation Plan. The Applied Science curriculum will support the vocational education goal found on page 104 of the Desegregation Plan: \"Upgrade courses, equipment and instructional methodology to reflect current and projected technology for job market needs.\" Tech Prep, of which applied science is a component, is designed to better prepare students for the demands of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, science, communications. This certainly supports the goal and technology skills. in the Desegregation Plan. 109G. 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) Court Order No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to implement the applied science curriculum would be a violation of State and Federal Requirements. Some parents and students may complain because students in the Tech Prep core curriculum must complete 4 units of science in contrast to 3 units in the College Prep core ctirriculum {2 units of applied biology and chemistry = 1 unit of biology thus accounting for the extra unit). Risk Risks of not implementing would be loss of federal funds and State accreditation. Risks of implementing include a possible negative reaction from some parents and students about 4 units of science being needed to meet Tech Prep core curriculum requirements. They may complain that 4 units of science decrease the opportunity to take elective courses. Timing Applied science must be implemented in 1994-95 to meet State and federal requirements, RESOURCES ANALYSIS Training 2 Teachers per school X 5 Schools X $100/day X 10 days = Textbooks, Equipment, Supplies, Manipulatives = Total H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS $10,000 $?2.QQQ $92,000 The primary supporters of this project are the business and industrial community who want to see graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the marketplace. Detractors may include some parents and students difficulty meeting graduation requirement for Tech Prep. who have I.  SAL IXFL' NATION PLAN The Supei^risor of Science has responsibility for the curriculum aspects of the Applied Science proposal. The Director of Vocational Education has responsibility for the financial and preparing the Carl Perkins reporting aspects of the proposal: grant, ordering equipment and supplies, filing required reports, etc. The Director of Staff Development will help coordinate the training aspect of the proposal. 110Carl Perkins grant submitted 6/1/94 Dir. of Voc Ed. Principals and counselors notified 11/1/93 - 11/31/93 of Tech Prep Requirements and Textbooks Dir. of Voc Ed. Materials, Supplies, and Textbooks Ordered 1/3/94 - 2/28/94 Dir. of Voc. Ed. Supv. of Science Details of Program is Discussed with Counselors 2/17/94 Supv. of Science Teachers to be trained identified 2/1/94 - 5/1/94 Supv. of Science Principals Program is Discussed with Students 3/1/94 - 5/29/94 Counselors Students Registration 3/14/94 -5/20/94 Principals Counselors Teacher Training Occurs 6/1/94 - 8/15/94 Supv. of Science Dir. of Staff Dev. Program Implementation 8/ /94 - 6/5/95 Principals Teachers Reporting on the implementation of Applied Biology and Chemist^ will be done by the Director of Vocational Education as part or me  Carl Perkins grant requirements. \u0026lt; ./ 111BUSINESS CASE ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the district is operating an ESL progreim which provides tutorial services for identified non-English speaking/limited English proficient students. The progreim was established in 1991 in an effort to achieve compliance with federal laws and state regulations. The primary goal of toe LRSD ESL Progreim is to assist non-English speaking or limited English proficient students in acquiring toe level of English language skill necesseiry for parity of participation in the standard instructional progreim. The ESL students are identified by the local schools through a referral process that links them with the ESL program. The program is managed through the office of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, which supervises the six part-time tutors who staff the program. assigned to the referred students for a minimian of one hour These tutors are of pull-out language instruction each week. The tutors travel to the students' schools and assist the principals, teachers, and coxinselors in devising a support plan for each student assigned to them. The district proposes to continue the ZSL program for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ult^ately, achieved. The 1994-95 program will serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components will include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\ndevelopment program\na comprehensive staff and identified/referral/assessment/evaluation process. revised A. BACKGROUND a In late April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (AUE) . All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. The district succeeded in obtaining a 50% to 60% average response rate from the 50 involved schools. The Home Language Survey results revealed 400+ students who were potentially eligible for English as a Second Language (ESL) services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. 1 90These 400 students represented 66 distinct language groups, other than English. The results of the 1993 Home Language Survey confirm sizeable ESL eligible population in the district. a Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, require the district to provide whatever services are necessary to ensure that ESL identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not recognize a language barrier as a handicapping condition or as the district cannot provide such a skills deficit, services for these students through existing Chapter One or Compensatory Education programs. B, PROBLEM DEFINITION The district is not in full compliance with federal laws and state regulations regarding the provision of services to nonEnglish speaking and English limited proficient students necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. Failure to comply with state regulations as outlined in the revised Arkansas Public Schools Standards for Accreditation may result in loss of state aid and district accreditation. Failure to realize the full intent of federal legislation may result in a lawsuit Failure to against the district on behalf of ESL students. respond to the needs of ESL students will results in education deprivation which will become a life-long handicap for these students. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There is no other alternative available to the district. Provision of special ESL services is a local responsibility and it cannot be supplemented through special education or compensatory education programs. D. KECOy ATIONS The district administration recommends to fully fund the ESL progrcim-, for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ultimately, achieved. The 1994-95 progrcim should serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components should include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\na comprehensive staff development program\nand a identification/referral/assessment/evaluation revised process. 2 91. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the continuation of the ESL program is to achieve parity for participation in the standard instructional program for all ESL identified students. EVALUATION CRITERIA F. The evaluation criteria for the 1994-95 LRSD ESL Program will include family/parent, patron, principal, guidance counselor, tutor, and student satisfaction with the ESL program\ntutor, teacher, principal, guidance counselor, and family satisfaction with ESL staff parent/fanily development\nexcunples of student work demonstrating achievement of program ooal/obiectives\nresults of goal/objectives\nteacher-made tests\nobservations in classrooms that identify teaching/leaming\n____________ reflecting appropriate materials and supplies\nand total number students exiting the program into the mainstreamed learning setting. quality inventories of IMPACT ANALYSIS The continuation of the LRSD ESL Program will have a positive impact on the schools, the district's learning achievement, district persoimel, parents/families, patrons and students. The result will be increased community and state support. DESEGREGATION PLAN The LRSD ESL Program personifies the desegregation plan It clearly demonstrates multiculturalism intent. infusion. COURT ORDER No negative impact is noted. POLITICAL FACTORS/RISKS Failure to continue the ESL progreun at the proposed level of funding will result in great risk to the district, the prospect of loss of accreditation, loss of state aid, and probable lawsuits. including TIMING Continued implementation of the ESL progreim during the 1994-95 school year is critical to the district and its clients. 3 q9G. RESOUHCE ANALYSIS The following allocations will be necessary to adequately fund the LRSD ESL Program for the 1994-95 school year: 1. Salaries 8 tutors X $1,500 per week X 36 weeks = $54,000 ($15 per hour X 100 hours per week) 8 tutors X $45 per month X 9 months ($15 per hour X 3 hours per month for prep) Total salary cost 3,240 - $57,240 2. Materials and supplies $10 per student X 100 students $50 per school X 50 schools Total materials and supplies cost = $ 1,000 = 2,500 = $ 3,500 3. Staff development * $45 per day X 2 days X 100 teachers (Substitute teacher pay) $90 per day X 5 days X 8 tutors (Tutor stipends) $5 X 108 participants (Training packets) Total staff development cost - $ 9,000 3,600 540 = $13,140 4. Assessment/Evaluation , $20 X 100 students \" 3 Total Assessment/Evaluation cost $ 2.000 $ 2,000 ' Total program cost - $75,880 '8 H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of the LRSD ESL Program are the tutors, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, administrators, parents, students, patrons, and government. There are no known detractors. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The supervisor of commtmications, English, ESL, and foreign languages will have the primary responsibility for organizing and implementing the ESL program. The supervisor will hire the tutors and coordinate the referral process with building principals. The supervisor will also oversee the procurement of materials and supplies and will plan staff development. 4 93LEGAL ggQWRgMgnS Summery Of ^edercl mondates tor th* Pfoygiop p/ Cqugi Ediirrrrionrri O^nort' jnitv tn Mctionel Onoin Mmorffv Students  1. No discrimination or exclusion from benefits on the ground of roce. color or national ongtn. Title VI. CrvO Rights Act of 1964 (1964) 20 U.S.C. sec. 20CDd. 2. No denial of access to porticioction in sctiool programs because of language. No segregation by tracking, ability grouping end assignment to special education. No exclusion of parents from school infonmarion. Pottinger. J.^(Director. OCR/DHEW) (1570) Memorandum to School Districts With More Than nve Percent National Origin-Minority Group Children regarding Identificotion of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the of Notional Origin. 35 Federal Register 11595. 3. No discrimination of exclusion from benefits solely on the basis of o handicapping condition. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973) sec. 504.29 U3.C. sec.794 4. Take affirmotive steps to provide LP students special instruction designed to overcome their sngfish language deficiency. There is no ecuaSty of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, text books, teachers, end Curriculum' for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meoningfui education. Leu V. Nicnois (1574) 414 U.S. 563. 5. No uniowtui denial of equol educational opportunity to NOM individuois. A Districts must take appropriate action to eaual porticipotion. overcome languoge barriers that impede Eduol Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (1974) 20 U3.C. sec.l7C3(n. 6. Use the home language os needed for home school communication and parent mvolvement. IE? may provide thot instruction be corned out bSinguolty. Education for AH Handicapped Children Act (1975120 U.S.C. sec. 1401. 'pP exceptional students hove a rightto receive bilingual services Jose P. V. Amboph (1979) EHLR 3 551: 245 (P n N y.) Y.S.. et oL. V. School Distrief of Philadelphia (1986) CA. 85-6924 (LD. PA) 8. An appropriate program is based on a sound theory, allocates sufficient resources to the program to implement the theory, and can demonstrate effectiveness in  teaching English end other subject areas, leading to parity of participation in the sroncord instructionol program Ccstoneac v. Pckcrd (1961) 648 F.2d 989 (Sth Ci.). 9. States must estabfish stondords and guidefines for service to NOM students end monitor school disnicts for compfiance with those standards. Idaho MigrOTt CouncS v. Board of Education G981) 647 F2nd 69 (9th Ci). Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (1967) 811 F. 2nd 1C30 (7th Ci). 10. Foreign-bom NOM students hove constitutional Flyer v. Doe (1952) 457 U3. TfT? protection. 11. staff members serving LS? students must be trained and Bngusticclly ouaCfied. Both oral end wntten skills of LE. students ms be assessed for exit pu.'pcses. program entry end Districts must monitorttie progress of students offer exit. An eppropnete program enables L=? students to uttimetety compete cccdemiccliy witn inglis-n speaking peers. Keyes v. School Distnet No. 1 (1983) 576 F. Supp 1533 (D. Colorado) vv 94SmrmgY Sf Mcigf HgagnlhWIea d. pmet^ to Ng^one^ origin Minority Students. 1. Identity NOM Jtudents. 2. Assen NOM rucents to identify L? riudents. J. Estcaisn enteric for entry into, ejot from, end recicssifiddtion into trie oftemetive progrom for L students. Oid^ncse instrudtiondi needs ond Dfcvide on driemotiye progran whidfi meets L Students specioi needs for Engiisft Icnguoge instruction, for undetsrondoOle ^CTon ,n otner content orecs. one for positive seif concept end idenrificdtion Witt) meir cuiturci tientoges.\n. Previce oopropridte end compdroOle insrtuctionol 6. oocoftunrties. Provide dudiified tedoners. mdteridls dftd srctf troining a. 9. IC. 11. Provide ecud cccess to other district progrems end senrices. Provide for pcrentcl involvement. Mentfor the progress of students offer progrem eat end reciessify students os needed. cvciudte tne e/temetrve progrem ond revise os needed. Moinroin student records. a\n? n\ngTUC7 mmv Amoen. A. N. cne Maianeai. S. E (1987) SSngue Eeucatiorr A Souceoooa. Naw Yonc Taecnen Caaaga Prao. ^ur**. f S. (1981) SiSngucawTi/BicuSureSun in Amencan Eaucstion: An Aevantira in Woneencne. Ihe Annes or me Amencan Acaaemy e Pgiitica one Soc:e Soer8 154.164-177 CCSSO Bjotirc cnff en ecucswnol ScaKV (IW05 Scnool Sueses lor Umtfta ^nqpn PreAocnr Stueann: tha Cncllanga ona Stora Besoorua. WeainQTon: CdSSO CiaTT!.ClW)fnBO\u0026gt;anna.'HnonryStuoano. Sccxmanro: CA8E. ^monaei. A. T. ena Pet S.WJ. (1989) Iha Rignt lo Sacawe BBnguel Saaciol catcanon. WaiTi Eaucanon Lew Beoonar. Augisr. 1989.1067-1091. Pemeneat a_ Menrr-Saine. t. ana Peirovien. J. (1989) Rwa Ctiei Hign Senool Orooour Stuey: Cherearetsne: at lsoar\u0026lt;c Hign Senool Stueann. Wemrigron: A5B1BA Asoociion. me. msButa lor Poiey Beiaraen. ffar. J. M.. ena Cairefe. J. W. (1938) Naw veieat: Ifwiiijmy Sluaans h tSl. Pusie Senoos. Bonon: Nenone CocMon e Aevoesrai tor Sluaaras. Aonee ScA/META (5/22/90) Proooiaa ESCt. Agreement tcaonosae: Deuui ii i lai e et Eoucanon. Soractai. P. (1988) taenraeet Aiarenca Moaula: Netlonot Origin OasagrageOon: Paeare Sreiurai ena Oiraenyai Bagoreing Nerione Oiigrt Stueans. Son Antonio: DSAJOaC-SCC. Lew. J. (tB85) BBneuoSan. BaeafCt Poiey on Banguet Eaucerton end Intaiciitieel Baicnoni. mramenenesJoune al inrarcunm Beienani 9.2.11G-iSQ. MBar. S_ Niccleu. S_ Oit. AA. Veieiviaio. S_ onaV/oSeer. S. (1990) too Lera to Batea: Becansieanng Saeano-Chenea Caaortuntiei tar HSacnc ana Omar Otoooun. wemeigton: Hoocnic PoPcv 0aeBment Ptotact in oaocicnon wdn ma Acaeamy tor Eaueanoncl Oeveiocmanr. nalEO Eaucation Puna (1990) EnglSn Plus LagSletive Bessat lor School Boera Memoen. waningron: NALEO Bcoi. P.O.. Baras. C. one Eiesoaeo. 0. (c.1988) tha Biam at Limitaa EnaBtft Broficienr Stueann: A Heneaooa tor Poretm ena ComrrBjruty AevoearaiAoi Saraenei ea lei Eirueienras con Conwao Limteea oat leome ir^qlas Merue oeie Poarei ca rcmae y Oalemorai ea le Camuniaaa. Sen rrencoea: META, wrm tna ceorcnca or CXAP. ScnBcga. B.. cne Canto Paeioerg. B. (1981) tha Stena or Eauaation lor Maseniei. Eaucaocnei Laceerme Jan.. 1981. Wonj. S. CT387) Tha Langucae Lacmna Stuctfcn at Alien ln\"i i i!cn Stueann in tna Unfee Stcrec A 'x^ra cne Pivcnoa^ausie PanoaerNc. na3 joune) 11.22-!34. 95SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Rightsell Incentive - Sharon Davis BUSINESS CASE Technology Theme Implementation PROGRAM STATUS: Q Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS\nQ Yes No NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT\nQ Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $125,732 RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $ 75,000 (maximum) Submitted by Superintendent HPW/Ua/STARiT.BC 45BUSINESS CASE RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the local learning environment for all students, incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and success is directly related to the success of the District's longterm desegregation plan. Each incentive school was required to develop and implement a school theme. Rightsell Incentive School Identified a theme of Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. The Career Awareness component has been in place since the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year. This business case addresses the first phase of implementation of the Mass Media component. in place The and their This business case A. BACKGROUND Parents, teachers, administrators and community volunteers selected the \"Career Awareness and Hass Media Technology Awareness\" theme to provide learning opportunities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. building level theme development team reviewed the four core areas the Little Rock School District Curriculum and decided that Language Arts and Social Studies were areas that would support both the  Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. TL_1_11_1..^ activities have been developed to implement the Career Awareness Component of the theme as follows: The The following L^S-^uer Outcomes for the Career Awareness Theme component were developed. Career Clusters were identified at each grade level. The cluster areas selected will create readiness for the Academics Program or Occupational/Technical Specialty Area. Our program, like the Arkansas Tech Prep Plan Establishes Higher Expectations of All Students by Integrating Academic and Vocational (Career) Education. Secondary-Level Applied The Rightsell Career Awareness curriculum offers a sequential program of study for all students. for low-level Our thrust is to eliminate the need unconnected academic coxirses. and vocational Social Skills Training, a skill development program, was designed to target behaviors that students need to be successful in solving, areas such as responsibility, problem goal setting, decision making. The and 465 counselor, classroom teachers, specialist, speakers teach the skills on a daily basis and reinforce them continually throughout the and resource year.  Industry site Visits, trips x.u.o.x, aice visits, field trips. Industry Adoption Pro^ams, and Youth leadership organizations/clubs xmpiementea. were related programs to support the Mass Media T chnology component were implemented - Closed Circuit Television, Rightsell Channel 36, Cable in the Classroom rogram-Storer Cable, Extended Day Newspaper-Using Aldus Pagem^er and Children's Writing and Publishing Center, and the Newspaper-In-Education Program. Closed Circuit  Career Planning/Educational Opportunity Research Activities were encouraged through campus site visits and mentorinterviews to empower students to become active participants in their academic planning and career preparation process. and Advanced Mass Media Technology is the future. .. ., , , ---------------sj  luuuxc, and usually not readily available to urban children in the home setting. A Laptop Computer Parent Loan Program is in place at Rightsell. We presently nave 3 laptop computers. They library/media loan program to classes, program and a 3-day Parent Loan Progr-am. school children the They are in constant use through the the Extended Day Class loan We must offer inner city . opportunity to learn about and become comfortable with this equipment and technology. The technological system we choose must be both state-of-the-art and capable of Rowing as new advancement become available. The Mass Media Technology Awareness component of the theme will be implemented throughout the Language Arts Curriculum. Teachers will integrate specific media communication activities at each grade level with key basic skills in the Language Arts Curriculum, components of the theme will\nThe Mass Media Teachers will integrate Specific Show the relationship between basic skills taught in the classrooms and used in every day mass media communication in the \"real world.\" Teach how technology enhances the communication process between people, businesses, and countries\nand teach how \"messages\" influence our lives. * Establish a student production studio (Rightsell Channel 36) and teach students how to communicate their ideas using communication technology, teacher transmissions student and controlled by the can play automatically or be teacher via a remote unit. Rightsell Channel 36 programs can be presented to selected classrooms or displayed throughout the school. 47* Challenge students to explore communication possibilities that e^end beyond their immediate family, friends, and community. Some of the existing communication systems include The Information Highway, FrEdMail, Internet and Distance Learning. Introduce students to career opportxinities related to Mass Media Communication. Learner Outcome for the Hass Media Technology Program Learner Outcomes for Mass Media Technology are linked directly to the LRSD Language Arts Program Outcomes. They are: Ability to communicate effectively using appropriate standards of grammar. Using writing thoughts/ideas/information. the process to convey Using tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible and adaptable level. Model effective listening and speaking skills to communicate and to succeed academically, socially, and economically. around Exhxbiting a better understanding of self, others, the world them through positive listening, speaking, reading and writing. and Ability to read with fluency attend to meaning of what is read. A theme specialist has been employed to assist in all phases of theme implementation, working with all staff, student and parents at the school. B. PROBLEM DEFIKITION In order to fully implement Rightsell's theme a plan has been developed to facilitate learning through the use of technology. Our theme requires that students advance to a higher level of through technology by becoming proficient in communication skills and interpersonal skills. Technology is an integral part of our theme that will be used to improve literacy skills, to motivate students to achieve and to adequately prepare them for the twenty-first century. 48district's To fully implement the Mass Media Technology Theme within the budgetary constraints, a fivephase process is recommended. Phase 1 Applied Communication Technology Basic Skills Program Enhancement Language Arts Skills that support the Mass Media Technology Theme will be identified. The Extended Day Program will be restructured and Enrichment Activities developed. enhance the Mass Media Technology Theme will be An interactive learning environment that promotes reading, writing learning across the curriculum will be established. Using the distributive method, five computer stations will be installed in each primary classroom. An Integrated Language Arts Program at the P^iary Level will be installed in each unit. This software will help students develop their emerging literacy and acquire the interconnected skills of reading and writing. Grades 4 6 will use the existing computer lab to assist in developing student proficiency in language, communication and self- directed research skills. A laser-printer and appropriate software will be added to allow student work to be printed. Intermediate Writing Process Model that guides students through pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing and publishing will be implemented. The components of that model are as follows: Literature-Based Writing Program is designed to help students master the interconnected activities of reading, writing and thinking. The Writing Program integrates reading and writing instruction in.realistic literacy tasks that encourage students to use language in meaningful contexts. Keys to Adventure (Keyboarding)teaches proper finger placement, and demonstrates correct reaches to the keys, shift keys and punctuation marks within the context of \"around the world\" activities. The Writing Processor combines the student-oriented word-processor with instruction in the five steps of the writing process. Phase 2 Computer Stations in the Fourth Grade Classrooms Five computer stations will be added to each fourth grade classroom, allowing for more integration of technology into the 49curricultm. Building on the foundation skills established at the grades, software at this level will be an updated version tne ath and reading software presently in use. The new software will also allow for increased connections the curriculum, presently in use. ------------- between areas of supporting the district's emphasis on thematic units and the holistic approach to teaching, assessment capabilities that will allow individualized lesson plans based on student deficiencies. The updated software for Phase 3 Computer Stations in Kindergarten Classrooms and Fifth Grade Classrooms Five Computers Stations will be placed in each fifth grade and At the fifth grade level students will use updated reading/math software with the capability of making , -------- Kindergarten students will use integrated language arts software in the classroom. kindergarten classroom. curriculum connections. j t in the classroom. Emerging literacy skills win  literature-based, thematic approach that Will no Ir^ ________________ will help build a strong foundation in critical language skills. Phase 4 Computer Stations in Sixth Grade and Pre-K Classrooms computer stations will be placed in each sixth grade classroom and three stations will be placed in the four-year-old (Pre-K) this phase of implementation all students will utilize technology within the classroom setting. classroom. sixth grade is an extension of the reading/math software in place for fourth and fifth grade. continue to be emphasized. Thematic units will Software for fouryearold will provide developmentally appropriate experiences for the young child. It will be built around a variety of multi-ethnic literature, science, and mathematics units. This early childhood and emerging literacy language program stresses that children grow into reading and writing with no real beginning ending point, that reading and writing develop concurrently and interrelatedly and according to no one right sequence or order. This Many of our students come to us deficient in language readiness skills. Students in early childhood programs must be immersed in skills. literacy experiences. in order to meet the first national educational goal set by the President and 50 governors in 1990: the year 2000 all children shall start school ready to learn.\" In \"By 50given the is inevitable. Technology provides ,. -  vehicle that will motivate engage the pre-school child. motivate, captivate and Phase S Career Demonstration Lab Teacher Resource Lab/Interactive Development Center. Media Oesigu and Telecommunications Product Parent Training/conference Training/Production Center Canter Due to the budgetary constraints LI _ 7.. S iinan'Sr for implem'entin^'phale inance this Career Demonstration LaL i, sponsorships and public donations. student work stations that of the LRSD, Rightsell School will 5. We will work I^b through grant writing, computer scanner retail The lab will include allow hands-on career experiences. center will be established to control A inventoT-v eauaoxisnea to conuroi Sto?r 7siltiatsd  in the Rightsell Roadrunner Student SSonkitVon^ installed with monthly ArkaSS\nCos.etoloqy, and Hair Care Pr'4ct ,etc ... The Career Demonstration Ta. a.  ------------ Lab will also house Interactive Training Lab for provide a state-of-the art Multimedia, video. a Computer Based parents and teachers. The Lab will computer lab featuring integrated and presentation hardware as well as classroom ___J  ' ------------------------------iiaiuwait: Classroom Sihigh-tech instructional labs. Computer Based Interactive Training Lab will allow parents ^eS!SSs^tnUV\"V a classroom that bring remo?\nnetworks university libraries, as well as math and their desktoos. This allows to desktops Communications/Telecommunications, This science -.-^wAxx^auioiis/iexecommunications, Distance Learning. Teleconferencing and a Computer Command Center that puts COmnutpr. mniieo an/A ----------- puuo MultiMedia computer, mouse and monitor in the instructors control . Video- every recommend that the Computer Lab Attendant position be eliminated. With the inservice rreininrr rhat- 11 With the inservice training that will be teaching staff and the instructional aides . ---------------------over , . a.a. J a. years, toere will not be a need for a computer lab in addition to the regular training, instructional aides will receive all of the   the district computer lab attendants the course of four attendant. addition to two Specialist, who also has a technology technical assistance.  ' ' as training provided for a back up. Our Theme background will provide The elimination of this part-time position will save approximately $7,346.60 yearly including salary fringe benefits. and 51C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were implementation at Rightsell. considered in planning for theme One alternative is to provide a television production studio by adding eguipment to a closed- circuit television system already in place. K_______ production skills must be built on the foundation of sound reading, writing, and oral communication skills. However, television thoroughly developed first, production phase. These skills should be before students move into the I ! i Another alternative considered was use of the existing computer lab for teaching and reinforcing literacy skills, five years old and slow by current standards. state-of-the-art The existing lab is - ___________ It will not support the software needed for Rightsell students. However, continued use of this software for grades four through six will provide sufficient literacy reinforcement for another year or two. The Language Arts software in the existing progrim is designed to remediate and reinforce specific reading skills rather than iMerse beginning readers in the interrelated elements of listening, speaking, reading and writing. i third alternative is to provide computers in the classroom for the primary grades as the first phase of the Mass Media Technology Theme. Every primary student will then have access to technology every day of the week as an integral part of instruction and learning. D. RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation that the district implement Phase I of the Rightsell Incentive School Mass Media Technology Theme during the 1993-1994 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of the theme provides\nFive computers in each classroom and software for grades 1~3 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum and the school's theme. The software provides for a thematic approach to learning, while emphasizing the skills of reading, writing, and speaking. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to support the LRSD's Desegregation Plan by implementing Phase I of Rightsell Incentive School's Mass Media Technology Theme. Students at Rightsell need this technology to improve their literacy skills. , including communication skills providing appropriate software and hardware in the classrooms will ensure that students have the tools they need to develop a sound foundation. 52Evaluation Criteria Student progress will be monitored through the following methods: ABACUS - Mastery of the Language Arts Curriculum will be measured through the ABACUS using 1994 individual student mastery as a baseline. Stanford 8 , ~ Student performance and grade performance will be measured using 1994 test scores as a baseline. Student Education Plans (SEP'S) will be developed based on Language Arts needs of individual students. Each _ will demonstrate 85% mastery of Language Arts identified skills listed in his/her SEP. Teacher observable checklist will be used to evaluate oral communication skills. Student work portfolios will be utilized to demonstrate progress of written communication skills. Increased use of thematic teaching units and concepts measured. Using the number of thematic units taught in grades 1-3 in 1993-94 school as a baseline. Increased teacher use of instructional effectiveness curriculum will be measured. technology to in integrating the enhance core Current use of the computer lab, teacher inservice related to technology will sex^e as a baseline. Also an instrument will be in place in fall to measure teacher attitude toward the use of Technology in the Classroom, will serve as a baseline. The fall of 1994 results Increased student interest and attitude in learning related to technology and Language Arts will be measured. An instrument will be in place this fall. Parental attitude and interest toward the use of technology will be surveyed. Using Spring 1995 as a baseline. r. IMPACT Using a literature-based curriculum that is supported by technology will motivate and stimulate students as they progress through the in understanding developmental stages language. A strong foundation in literacy skills at the primary level is essential. 53Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation, academic programs (Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expressions Across the Curriculum and Instructional Technology) and the purpose of incentive schools. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance with the court order to develop a theme. \"On The 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report states that: May 1, 1992, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore and fully implement themes at all incentive schools, but the district took nearly a full year to select themes and hire program Specialist for the six of the seven incentive schools. Thus, denying students the level of theme enhancement that the desegregation plan promised and the Court required.\" At Rightsell, we have developed a theme that will enhance the core curriculum. The program will provide students with foundational skills that acre required to be a successful student as well as skills that will allow them to compete with their peers in the future. The implementation of the theme will also help Rightsell in its recruitment efforts. Political Factors The district can receive favorable responses from the coxirt and schools if resoxirces are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing Phase I of this plan can be transferred if necessary. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment in technology. Should the district decide not to support this system, ah alternative plan will need to be developed for the Mass Media Technology component of Rightsell's theme. Timing In order for the Mass Media Communication component of Rightsell's theme to be in place by the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. the purchasing process must begin as soon as possible. Installation of equipment, wiring, and staff training in the use of the software will take several months. If primary students are to be positively impacted from the beginning of the school year, it is critical that the procurement of hardware and software be begun at once. 546. RESOnRCSS ANALYSIS i  of hardware and software that must be implement Phase I of Rightsell's Mass Media Technology Theme. All costs are estimates and are subject to change. 55Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Cabling $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 wiring $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 56Glossary of Terms Distance Learning Distance Learning increases instructional effectiveness through the use of interactive two way television  1  Students can receive standard curriculum and special courses the individual attention that distance with active response. with learning can provide. Teachers and staff members can actively product training sessions delivered by the most qualified presenters and instructors. Distance Learning can significantly reduce travel cost, extend the traditional classroom or training center to students at remote locations. FrEdMail - The FrEDMail Network is a growing, distributed and low- cost telecommunications network that helps teachers and students pa^'ticipate' in a wide variety of learning experiences and exchange information freely and simply, become better learners, readers, FrEDMail motivates student to and writers. It also lets teachers share experiences with student assignments, distribute teaching materials, and curriculum ideas. Implementation of this program at Rightsell would allow our students to communicate with student at Franklin Incentive School, Garland Incentive, Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet School, and over 150 member school districts nation-wide. IMTBRNBT - The INTERNET is a global communications network that connects computers all over the world. Education, government, business, and academic organizations participate in the network. Electronic mail between all users can be accessed, providing communications capabilities with a wide variety of people, to libraries around the world and forums for discussions about a Access variety of subjects are available. Thematic Approach - A thematic approach is a framework based on a particular topic, idea, author, or genre. Each unit has outcomes or goals that specify what you want students to accomplish as a result of the unit experiences and lessons. These themes involve a number of curricular areas, such as science, art, music, or math, even though-the focus of the unit is developing the ability to read and write. 57RIGETSEIJ, INCENTIVE SCEOOL Business Case ADDENDUM TO PEASE I We have closely reviewed the implemetation of hardware and software at each Phase of our Business Case. We believe that Phasing in the Theme over a period of six years is not the best process for implementation. However, we do understand the financial crisis of the School District and recommend further reducing our cost as illustrated below. We recommend deferring the following items in Phase I to a later phase. PEASE I Estimated Pre-Tax Total $151,578.00 OPTION #1 Phase I Pricing Only with note that placed in later phases. many of the cuts are being Reduce Printers to two $1,600.00 Reduce Teacher First Stations to one $6,000.00 Reduce Softweire to $53,732.00 Phase I Pre-tax total $125,732.00 Saving Approximately $25,846.00 OPTION #2 Same as above except eliminate final Teacher First Station Phase I Pre-tax total $115,943.00 Saving Approximately $35,635.00 58 r /-t7- I SEQ # 14 03 04 24/230 223 231 13 02 213 215 01 15 21 08/204 25/225 BUSINESS CASES Program Name TENTATIVE RECESWD JAN 1 7 1995 Office Of Desegregafion h/i^nnyiiitg Academic Progress Incentive Grant/Margaret Gremillion, Sadie Mitchell Academic Support Program/Dennis Glasgow, Gene Parker, Leon Adams Data Processing/David Beason Districtwide Facilities Study (School Closings)/Dr. Mayo Pupil Transportation Services/Mary Jane Cheatham Family Life Education/Linda Young, Rene Carson New Futures/Linda Young Four-Year-Old-Program/Pat Price Guidance Services/Jo Evelyn Elston Health Services/Gwen Efird HIPPY/Marion Shead McClellan Community School/Jodie Carter Staff Development/Marion Woods Substitute Teachers/Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Vocational Education/Carol Green Safety and Security/Bobby Jones Discipline Management/Sadie Mitchell, Larry Robertson, Walter Marshaleck Alternative Education/Jo Evelyn Elston, Vic Anderson, Randy Glenn/ * ^Wce 0/ oes^.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation BUSINESS CASES FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1996-97 FEBRUARY 1996EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 1996 If our youth are to be afforded the best possible chance for success in the workplace, systematic and collaborative change in our educational system is imperative. Employers continue to express the fact that they want more than just the traditional academic and technical preparation. They want workers who possess general workplace competencies, can communicate effectively, solve complex problems, work in a team, understand the underlying scientific principles of technology and understand the valve of lifelong learning. Recent federal legislation, particularly the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990, and the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 have provided the impetus for the systematic and collaborative efforts needed to meet the challenge of this change. Under the Carl D. program is funded. Perkins legislation, the Tech Prep Education Tech Prep in the State of Arkansas is mandated The Tech Prep curriculum was initially put by Act 980 by 1991. into place in the Little Rock School District during the 1993-94 The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare school year. students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training program for entry-mid level employment. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_627","title":"Principal selection process, newspaper clippings","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":["1993/1994"],"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","School management and organization","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, newspaper clippings"],"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/627"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":["168 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas Democrat (gazette ' WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 27. 1993 Williams dispels rumors about school closing, says board sensitive to blacks BY WAYNE JORDAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More than 65 parents, teachers and school administrators heard Little Rock School Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams address wide-ranging questions Tuesday at another of the new school chiefs public forums to determine priorities for the next budget year. The Little Rock School District operates more than 50 schools for 26.000 students at an annual cost of $162 million. Most of the expense is wrapped up in salaries for 4.000 employees. Williams, the former superintendent of schools in Syracuse. N.Y., spoke at Parkview Arts Magnet School on John Barrow Road in the second of five planned public forums. He reassured the crowd that Garland Incentive Elementary School at 3615 W. 25th St. was not scheduled to close. He called the idea a false rumor that the School Board has never even discussed. Black parents at the meeting expressed concern that when the district closes or moves schools, they always seem to be in the black community. That creates a cultural and social void, furthering the disassociation of blacks with education, they said. The board is appealing a federal judges decision to move the proposed new Stephens Elementary School from the inner city to a site on Interstate 630. The board wants to build the school at the existing school site, 3700 W. 18th St. Williams lamented that the district must obey court orders and follow approved desegregation plans, but said he hoped to get the district out of court as soon as possible. Then well build schools where we want to, he said. Williams, who is black, also said the board was sensitive to the needs of blacks. But one man said it appeared to him that the only time the district built something in the inner city, negative connotations were involved. He cited the opening of the old Martin Luther King School as a truancy center, where police can drop off students found skipping school. He called that operation, which begins Monday, a mini-jail. Williams took exception to the term. I never thought of it like that, he said. I thought of it as a clearinghouse.TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,1993 No decision on closing Garland, LRSD chief says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL * Democral-GazeltQ Education Writer No decision has been made to close Garland Incentive Elementary School, Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams told parents Monday night al a community forum at the school. But the school board and district administrators will be studying central Lillie Rock demographics and the projected number of children in the area, Williams said. Those statistics may determine the fate of both Garland and Stephens Incentive Elementary. Both schools are in central Lillie Rock and have enrollments of under 300. Stephens i.s al 3700 W. lOlh SI. Gal land is al 3615 W. 25th St. \"No one i.s saying Garland is closing. The board hasn't said so. I havent said so, Williams said. But he also said the board must consider ways to operate more efficiently and whether there will be enough children in the area to support two schools or a new school building. District officials must make a decision fairly soon about the schools  particularly Stephens, as the district is obligated by its court-approved desegregation plan to rebuild Stephens as a considerably larger interdislrict school along the Interstate 630 corridor for the 1995-96 school year. School board members have discussed seeking permission in federal court to change the desegregation plan to retain Stephens as an incentive school. An incentive school gels extra money for special programs to improve the achievement level of black students and attract whiles to Hie hard-lo-desegre- gale schools. On another issue, a parent. Pearlie Creal-Pope, asked Wil- liam.s to consider altering a policy that results in susiiension of both students in any fight. She said the policy practically forces junior liigh students to join gangs for protection from attackers.District  Continued from Page 1A to hundreds of names. Jackson said in a telephone interview from Greensboro, N.C., where he and several of the principals are attending a magnet school conference, that he had not asked for any kind of transfer. He said he did not know whether he would ask for a school board hearing on the change. Under a November 1992 federal court order, the district is supposed to consult with the Magnet Review Committee and seek court approval before making staffing changes at magnet schools. The court has not received a request to approve the moves. Donna Creer, executive director of the Magnet Review Committee, could not be reached for comment on Jackson. The Mag- . net Review Committee comprises representatives of each of the three school districts in the county, the state Department of Education, and black families who intervened in the 11-year-old Pulaski County desegregation lawsuit. Williams did confirm that Franklin Davis, principal at Franklin Incentive Elementary School, is going to become the principal at Wilson Elementary. jf f. The current Wilson principal SIm m 1 x Henry Williams Gwen Zeigler, will go to Washington Magnet Elementary. Karen Buchanan, the current Washington principal, will hecome principal at Henderson Junior High. Clell Watts, the current Henderson principal, is retiring. Barbara Means, principal at Fair Park Elementary, will become principal at Baseline Elementary. Williams would not comment on the unassigned principals or on any other changes among the schools. I However, Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham, principal at Baseline, confirmed that she is unassigned. Others unassigned include Walter Marshaleck at Ma- belvale Junior High\n-Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale Junior High\nand Lavanna Wilson, principal at Bale Elementary School. Still other changes confirmed  through interviews and sources Tuesday include transfer of Lionel Ward, principal at the Romine Interdistrict Elementary School, to Mabelvale Ele- mentap^\nand Julie Davenport, principal at Mabelvale, to Franklin Interdistrict School. Rudolph Howard, interim principal at Central High School this year, is expected to be recommended to the school board to fill the position permanently at that school. A district committee interviewed three candidates  Howard and two out-of-state candidates  before recommending that Howard be permanently appointed to the post at the districts largest and most famous school. Williams said some of the positions, particularly those vacated by retiring principals. must be advertised and candidates interviewed before they can be filled. Besides Watts at Henderson, Dr. Doyle Dillahunty, principal at the Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, has said he will retire at the end of this year. And Richard Maple at Forest Heights Junior High is expected to retire at the end of this year.Aricansas Democrat igr (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 4,1994 LR schools shuffling principals Spreading expertise, superintendent says / BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Principals at more than a dozen of Little Rocks 52 public schools will change jobs next year because of retirements and involuntary transfers made by. Superintendent Henry Will-i iams. i Dr. Ed Jackson, principal of the popular Williams Magnet EL ementary School, is one principal who wont be returning toi his post. He said he was notified\nFriday that he would not be re\u0026lt; . assigned to Williams next year. and has not yet been assigned-' J to another school. ' At least four other principals ) were unassigned on 'Tuesday. } The Arkansas Democrat- Gazette learned of changes Tues-' day from principals, from sources who asked not to be identified and from_Williams.^ Williams said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon that principal changes will not be completed before the end of next week. He said he is waiting for final decisions from employees who are considering retiring. The moves are being made to strengthen schools, Williams said. All buildings need strong leadership, and there are some principals in our district who have experience in successful schools. They should be used to strengthen other schools. Williams said he has not seen negative evaluations on the people being moved. Jackson has been principal at Williams for six years and served in several other district schools before that. His school has been among the most popular of the magnet schools. The waiting list for the school in recent years has grown See DISTRICT, Page 13AAAansati Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994 Copyrignt e UMe Rock Nowspapefs. lop. Williams lists principles, not principals Answers criticism, says stability is goal BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Caught in a backlash of criticism about eliminating athlet- * ic stipends and reassigning principals, Superintendent Henry Williams said Monday he is trying to operate the Little Rock district efficiently and effectively. In recent weeks, Wil- liams has Williams come under fire over some of his administrative decisions. Those decisions include changing principals at several schools and sending notices to coaches and others who get extra-duty pay that their stipends may be discontinued after this year. The stipends notice led to widespread speculation that athletics might be eliminated or that coaches might be asked to put in extra time without pay. Williams also announced retirements and reassignments that would result in new principals at 20 of the districts 51 schools. Williams, who has been superintendent only since October, had little to say during the last few weeks as public criti-  See DISTRICT, Page 6A District  Continued from Page 1A cism about those issues grew. But he spoke about them, and his basic goals, during an interview Monday. Williams said the stipends issue has been misinterpreted and that he has no intention of eliminating sports or other activities. Instead, he said the district sent out the notices that stipends would be eliminated to give administrators time to review the stipends, to make sure they were being paid to the people who were doing the work. Larry Buck, chairman of the legal services committee of the American Federation ofTeach-ers in Little Rock, said two weeks ago that the districts action on the stipends violated stipends in the district are for as much as $6,000 a year. Stipends also are paid to teachers who supervise students before and after school, or who teach six instead of the traditional five periods in the junior and senior high schools. Williams said his staff is looking closely at the extra class periods for which teachers get stipends worth 20 percent of their salaries. If we can more effectively schedule our teachers, then the need to offer the sixth period is no longer present, he said. We believe we can run the district more efficiently and save money in areas where we have not saved before. If we can give a teacher who is teaching six periods now, the same number of students in a five-period day, it doesnt make sense to teach six periods. Its a sizable amount of district resources go-state law and the organization would challenge the decision. The superintendent describes himself as an advocate of school athletics and the recipient of a basketball scholarship to Fayetteville State College in North Carolina. I recognize as a superintendent the importance of athletics to a school district, Williams said. They give so many of our young people an opportunity to display their skills and develop their academic skills, as well, and go on to colleges and universities. As a person who benefited from an athletic program, I would not want to eliminate it. Williams said people who coach or sponsor activities should have no concerns about continuing those activities and getting stipends for them, unless their particular activity no longer exists. Some of the ing to those sixth periods. The superintendent wouldnt say anything specific about proposed principal changes, but said he has made some decisions and is waiting to make some others. He said he may be here for a long time and that they now have stability in this office. Ive got to make decisions that I think will move this dis-trict forward, he said. The superintendent is looking for other ways to improve schools and their operations\nHe has proposed closing Stephens Elementary and building a larger building that would be attractive to residents across the city. He also is looking at closing schools in other areas where  enrollment has declined. He is looking at programs in other parts of the country that could be adapted to Little Rock. Last week, he visited Oklahoma City to see a teaching approach that emphasizes student self-esteem. He hopes to send Little Rock board members and principals to see the Oklahoma City schools in action this spring. He ygars would like to start some pilot I tell them that I plan to be programs next year, he said. able to make some announcement by the middle of this week. Williams angered parents, especially those at Williams Magnet Elementary School, by telling Principal Ed Jackson that he will not be reassigned to that school for next year. Williams School is one of the most popular schools in the district with parents, in part because of the high test scores the students produce. Parents tell Williams that principal assignments have been stable in a district that has faced a lot of uncertainty and leadership changes in recent Betnocnttyil  FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1994 LRSD posts jobs to lead 11 schools Reshuffling could put new principals at 40% BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Nearly 40 percent of Little Rocks 52 schools could begin next year with new principals, thanks largely to reshuffling by Superintendent Williams. Henry  Related article 6B More than a dozen of the 20 possible principal changes would result from reassignments made by Williams. Some of the moves follow principals resignations and retirements. District officials on Thursday posted openings for 11 of the positions, including the principals post at Williams Magnet Elementary School, where some parents and teachers have protested the removal of Dr. Ed Jackson. The district rehired Jackson for the 1994-95 school year, but like some other principals, he has not been assigned a job for next year. His school is among the most popular with parents in all three Pulaski County school districts and has some of the highest student test scores. The unassigned principals  whose salaries wont change next year  are not guaranteed a principals job. Unassigned principals are eligible to apply for their current jobs. The 11 posted job openings are at six elementary schools, four junior highs and one high school. Of the six elementary schools with job openings, three are magnet schools and three are incentive schools. Williams has not commented on his reasons for moving specific principals. In general remarks about the changes, though, he has said that moving principals can strengthen schools and he has no intention of harming programs at any school. In one meeting with parents, Williams said officials at some schools ' had become complacent. Information about some of the changes began leaking to the I Principals  Continued from Page 1A public last week, but two more schools were listed Thursday among those advertising for new principals: J.A. Fair High and Rightsell Incentive Elementary. Fairs principal, Al Niven, is retiring from the district. Sharon Davis, Rightsell principal, has been assigned to Romine Interdistrict Elementary. Besides Williams, Righlsell and Fair, the advertised principal jobs are at Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Carver Magnet Elementary, Mitchell Incentive Elementary, Franklin Incentive Elementary, Cloverdale Junior High, Mabelvale Junior High, Forest Heights Junior High and Southwest Junior High. Several other schools also are expected to have new prin- cipals next year, including Henderson Junior High, Fair Park Elementary, Wilson Elementary, Washington Magnet Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, Baseline Elementary, Bale Elementary and Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center. Those jobs have not been advertised as vacant, but Williams has revealed who will take over some of them. For example, Karen Buchanan, principal al Washington, will be assigned to Henderson\nGwen Ziegler, now at Wilson, is expected to be assigned to Washington\nand Franklin Davis, now at Franklin, is scheduled to go to Wilson. The 11 vacant positions were posted Thursday, the same day the Pulaski County Magnet Review Committee met about its role in overseeing staffing changes at the magnet schools. Committee members said Thursday they will ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright about their interpretation of their duties. In a November 1992 court order, Wright told the district to consiill the committee and seek court permission prior to making stafling changes at the magnet schools. Williams has acknowledged that the school board and ultimately the federal judge must approve hi.s decisions on the principal changes. Committee members agreed Thursday they do not have the right to overturn staffing decisions in the Little Rock district. But the.v said that from now on, the Little Rock district should notify them as soon as possible about expected changes in the certified staff, including principals, at the magnet schools. Committee members objected to first learning of the clianges in newspaper reports. , Dr. Bobby Altom, commit- : tee chairman and an assistant superintendent in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the panel has the au- thority to review whether changing principals will affect the magnet school program. In Jacksons case, that determination was not made Thursday because the committee lacked needed information, such as who the replacement might be. The committee can make recommendations to the judge about proposed staffing changes. Magnet schools are desegregation tools that offer special academic programs to make hard-to-desegregate schools more attractive. They are funded by the three Pulaski County school districts and the stale Department of Education. Students from all three districts attend the six magnet schools in Little Rock. The Magnet Review Committee consists of representatives of the districts, the state and the black families who intervened in the school desegregation lawsuit. Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis assured the committee Thursday that the district would follow its standard process for hiring principals.Legal ius, outs of session on principals split board Arkansas Democrat ^(^azette SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1994 Copyright O Little Rock Newspaoera. Inc. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District officials disagreed Friday about the legality of school board action on the transfer of could be grounds for a court challenge because discussion 15 principals to new positions, of a trans- Ih, Williams  At a Thursday meeting at- , fer proce- . tended by a large contingent\ndure is not of parents opposed to some of listedihthe  tHaiaa the transfers, the board recessed for a brief private conference. It returned a few minutes later and announced its conclusion that board approval of the transfers wasnt listed in the '' .   law as a \\ 4 , reason for a closed ssibrii The issue also couldcofne, up at a federal court bearing.\nscheduled for Tuesday' before J U.S. District Judge Siisah WiSb-'- required.  y. ber Wright.,She presides in Perrin Jones, a spokesman ' districts desegregation ?ifor the Arkansas attorney . weeks generalS office, said Friday ^^sked for information abput that the executive session . ' See.WILLIAMS, Paget4A' Williams  Continued from Page 1A principal assignments. Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams said Friday that the board acted correctly. He cited a clause in his contract that states that the superintendent has authority to direct and assign teachers and other employees and shall organize, reorganize and arrange the administrative and supervisory staff in a way that best serves the district. But school board member Pat Gee disagreed. She said the boards decision to take no action was inconsistent with state law that gives school boards authority to assign, reassign or transfer all teachers in schools upon the recommendation of the superintendent. Gee said she would have voted to oppose the principal reassignments had she been given a chance. She also said she felt the executive session was illegal because it dealt with the process for handling the transfers, not the hiring, firing, promotion, or disciplining of specific employees as required by the states Freedom of Information Act. She and board member O.G. Jacovelli were on the losing side of a 4-2 vote to go into executive session Thursday night. Board members Kevin OMalley and John A. Riggs IV, said Friday that the board was correct in going into a closed session to discuss personnel. Both said the purpose of the session was to discuss the specific principals to be transferred. However, the board decided almost immediately after convening the closed session that a vote on the transfers was not needed. Alfred Angulo Jr., a representative of parents unhappy with the process used to select a principal for the Gibbs Magnet Elementary School, said parents are reviewing the legality of the boards decisions. The group will look for help from the Magnet Review Committee, which New principals People hired as new principals by the Little Rock Thursday: William Broadnax, principal of J.A. Fair High School, previously interim principal at Henderson Magnet Junior High. Cassandra Norman-Mason, principal of Cloverdale Junior High, previously assistant principal at Southwest Junior High. Johnny Neely, principal al Southwest Junior High, previously principal al Townsend Park Elementary School In Dollarway School District. Since 1973 he also has worked In the Lee County. Earle, Bay, South Mississippi County, Parkin and Forrest City school districts. Principals transferred to other district jobs by Superintendent Henry Williams: Sharon Davis, assigned to Romine Elementary from Rightsell Incentive Elementary. Lionel Ward, assigned to Mabelvale Elementary from Romine. Julie Davenport, assigned to Franklin Incentive Elementary from Mablevaie. Franklin Davis, assigned to Wilson Elementary from Franklin. Gwen Ziegler, assigned to Washington Elementary from Wilson. Karen Buchanan, assigned to High from Henderson Junior Washington. Or. Samuel Branch, assigned to Fair Park Elementary from Mitchell Incentive Elementary, Barbara Means, assigned to Baseline Elementary from Fair Park Elementary. Mai7 Menking, assigned to Williams Magnet Elementary from Brady Elementary School. oversees the operation of magnet schools. The Gibbs parents complained to the board that a decision about a new principal was made without their input, even though they were invited to interview applicants for the job. They called the interview process a sham. Williams appointed Dr. Ed Jackson, who has been principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School, to Gibbs. Jack- son has said he applied for the School Board on Duane Benage, principal at Forest Heights Junior High School. Benage previously was principal at the Oxbow High School in Bradford. Vt. He also has been a principal and teacher in several schools in Indiana. Sharon Brooks, principal at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School, previously assistant principal at Rockefeller Incentive Elementary. Faith Donovan, principal at Mitchell Incentive Elementary School, previously curriculum specialist al Dunbar Magnet Junior High. Dr. Ed Jackson, assigned to Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary from Williams. Gayle Bradford, assigned to Mabelvale Junior High from Cloverdale Junior High. Walter Marshalak. assigned to the Alternative Learning Center from Mabelvale Junior High. Linda Watson, assigned assistant principal at J.A. Fair from the student hearing oflicer's position. Othello Faison, assigned to the federal programs office from the Alternative Learning Center. Mary Jane Cheatham, principal on special assignment to the transportation office from the principal's position at Baseline Elementary School. Lavanna Wilson, principal on special assignment to the early childhood education office from the principal's job at Bale Elementary. ArkanMS 0moerat.Qazen Gibbs and Williams jobs for next year but would have preferred the job at Williams. Donna Davis, the Gibbs principal, retired at the end of this school year. Mary Menking, formerly principal at Brady, was assigned to Williams School. Because Williams and Gibbs schools are magnet programs, the principal selection could become an issue before the Magnet Review Committee and Judge Wright. Previous court orders in the districts desegregation case have stated that the Little Rock district must consult with the Magnet Review Committee about staffing changes and get approval from the court. Marcia Harding, a member of the Magnet Review Committee and an administrator in the state Department of Education, said she believed the committee would review the principal selections to ensure that the correct process was followed. She said the committee role is not to select a principal but that it can evaluate how a selection is made and whether it benefits  the magnet program. Disputes ' between the committee and the I school district can be referred I te the federal court. The committees next regular meeting is July 5, but a special meeting could be called. Williams was quoted as suggesting during Thursdays meeting that parental involvement isn't needed to operate successful schools, a remark that shocked members of the audience and even school board members, Jacovelli said Friday. Williams said Friday that Angulo had taken his comments out of context in an earlier meeting between the two. In response to comments that schools must have parental involvement, he said that education literature is filled with cases of schools that succeed without parent involvement. I believe parent involvement is necessary in every district at all levels, he said Friday. I have worked to encourage it and will continue to do so. But he also said parents cant assume his authority to select principals. Williams said he wanted an experienced principal at Gibbs. Ann Brown, the federal desegregation monitor, said she had received calls from people who were concerned about the outcome of the board meeting. She said she has tried to reassure them that the district's desegregation plan as well as the federal courts are insistent about parental involvement in the schools.Arkansas Democrat IJfr (gazette FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1995  2 principals recommended for new posts Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams has more recommended two school principal changes for j the coming school year. If the Little Rock School Board endorses the changes at a meeting Thursday, Betty Raper, principal last year at Brady Elementary School, will become principal at Gibbs Magnet School, and Gwendolyn Zeigler, principal last year at Washington Magnet Elementary School, will become principal at Terry Elementary. The board last month approved eight other new principal assignments. However, four of the principals had been acting principals at their schools for at least part of last year. The vacant Gibbs and Terry positions were advertised, and committees of parents and School District administrators interviewed the applicants. The committees submitted their top three choices for each job to Williams, who makes principal recommendations to the School Board. Terrys former principal, LaDell Looper, resigned to take a job in Hot Springs. The former principal at Gibbs, Marjorie Bassa, transferred to Mitchell Incentive Elementary School. spokesman District Suellen Vann said no principals have been selected to fill the positions at Brady and Washington that will open up if the School Board accepts Williams recommendations.RIGGED DEAL The Little Rock School Board accommodated unhappy parents from Gibbs Magnet School last week and reopened the principal selection process. The parents were steamed because Superintendent Henry Williams had promised parents ey could be involved, then set up what was effectively a sham selection process. Williams drew community-wide attention when he snapped publicly at the Gibbs parents that schools could succeed without parental involvement. The Insider has learned that School Board member John A. Riggs, long one of Williams staunchest defenders, tried to secretly broker an end to this dispute that would have been beneficial to both sides. Riggs telephoned at least one Gibbs parent with an offer to reopen the principal selection process in return for a statement from parents that Williams had been quoted out of conte,\\t in the media. No dice, the Gibbs committee responded. The truth is the truth. But the school board relented anyway.WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994  School chief confesses he dropped ball Report faults LRSD in moving principals BY DANNY SHAMEER Odmocrat\u0026gt;GazeTte Education Writer The Little Rock School District ignored court-ordered procedures in selecting magnet school principals last spring, a report concluded Tuesday. Report  Continued from Page 1A process at Gibbs Magnet Ele- port said. mentary School particularly upset parents. Superintendent Henry Williams acknowledged that he dropped the ball during the principal-election process, which caused an uproar among parents, a report from the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring said. Williams said his staff didnt advise him about the need to involve the Magnet Review Committee in changing principals at Gibbs, Carver and Williams magnet schools. Later, when he learned about the obligation to consult the committee about staffing changes, he contacted the group, and, he said, he intends to do a better job communicating with the committee in the future. Some of the problems that arose during the process could have been avoided if the superintendent and his senior administrators had communicated better, the report said. The 26-page report covered the selection process the district used in filling magnet and nonmagnet school principal vacancies in the Little Rock district. Twenty-two principal positions were changed  half because of reassignments. The principal shake-up at Williams Magnet Elementary , School and the ^election See REPORT, Page 9A pointed some principals, and was faced with backtracking to accommodate the need for parent involvement, the re- The Magnet Review Committee first learned about im- U.S. District Judge Susan pending changes in principals Webber Wright, who oversees after members read about it in the Pulaski County school de- the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, segregation case, ordered an ' investigation. the report said. The report cited a Novem- The report  the result of her 1992 court order that the investigation  found\n A communication breakdown affected the selection made the committees supervisory role clear. That order, the report said, process. The superintendent should have served didnt ask his staff about past hiring procedures, and they mittee members, didnt tell him. His deputy su- perintendent, Estelle Matthis, sits on the committee, the report noted. as a 'wake-up call for the com- Dr. Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee, said Tuesday he had not read the report. He said.  The district lacked writ- though, that the Little Rock ten policies and guidelines for district is working with the eve^one involved in the selection process to follow.  Many people felt committee to prevent a recurrence of the problem. Little Rock is working on a Williams had already decided procedure to select staff memin some cases which principal bers for the magnet schools, should go where, regardless of and the committee will review outside advice from parents that policy when its ready, Al- and others serving on the selection committees. Williams tom said. Williams did not return a acknowledged he had a de- reporters call Tuesday, sired outcome in mind for The magnet schools feature particular schools, and was not special programs designed to willing to compromise his se- lections. attract black and white students from all three Pulaski  The superintendent made County public school dis- decisions without knowing the tricts. history of community involve- ment, the committees responsibilities in the desegregation case, or court orders that re- And the federal-court-created Magnet Review Committee is supposed to oversee the op- eration of the six original Lit- peatedly emphasize the role of tie Rock magnet schools, inparent involvement and the eluding Gibbs, Williams and importance of not surprising Carver. the community. as part of the desegregation By the time he learned that case, the state pays all trans- the district had used interview portation costs for those mag- conimittees in the past, the su- net students, along with half of perintendent had already ap- the cost of educating them. .\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_449","title":"Election zone","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":["1992/1994"],"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","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"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/449"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 1 e F P 0 M J 0 H H W . tU W L K E P P . TO 6 214 7 P . 0 2 received SEP 1 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEVEN ZONE PLAN Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitoring ZONE 1 367 intersects Interstate Begin at the point where Hwy. 3Q, Follow the Little Rock School District's southern boundary east to the Arkansas River then follow the river northwest to the drainage ditch under Cantrell Road at Gill Street thence west along straight l_..c Street a line intersecting the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Deaf then west to the end of Lee Avenue then follow a straight imaginary line due north to Fairfax At Fairfax Terrace go west to Martin Street Terrace. thence north on Martin to I, west on I to Midland, south on Midland to H, west on H to Oak, Kavanaugh, west on Kavanaugh to Walnut, south on Oak to south on Walnut to west Markham, east on West Markham to Elm, south on Elm to Interstate 630, east on 630 to Brown Street, south on Brown to 14th, east on 14th to Cross, south on Cross to Wright Avenue, east on Wright Avenue to Ringo, south on Ringo to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty creek south to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek southwest to Interstate 30. ZONE 2 Begin at the intersection of Fouche Creek and Interstate 30 follow Fouche northwest to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty Creek north to Ringo, Ringo north to Wright Avenue, Wright Avenue west to Cross, Cross north to 14th, 14th west to Brown, Brown south to 22nd, 22nd west to Pine, Pine south to Asher, Asher southwest to 29th, 29th west to Washington, Washington north to 28th, 28th west to Adams, Adams north to 24th, 24th west to Filmore, Filraore north to 19th, 19th west to University Avenue, University south to 53rd Street, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen Drive east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, said boundary south to Rosemore, Rossmore southeast to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, Tracks southeast to Koerner, Koerner east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to Interstate 30, 30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena Drive, from there follow an imaginary line due south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale Cutoff, Mabelvale Cutoff west to Chicot, Chicot south to the school district and also city limits boudary line, follow this boundary line northeast around a private airfield to the point of origin.0 1 1 F. 2 4 F R 0 M I 0 H n W . 1.1 P L K E P P . A . TO 2 14 7 P . 0 3 ZONE 3 Begin at the intersection Follow Brown street north of Brown and 22nd Street. to 1-630, 630 west to West Jonesboro, west Jonesboro south to I2t\nn, 12th west to University, University north to 630 west to Mississippi, Mississippi south to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Kanis, Kanis west to Shackleford, West 12th, 630, Shackleford south to Panther Branch Creek, then follow an imaginary line due south to the northern end of Talley Road, then follow an imaginary line due west to west 44th street, 44th street east to Weldon, Weldon south to 46th, at 46th follow an imaginary line due south to Colonel Glenn, follow Colonel Glenn east to Barrow, follow Barrow north to 28th, 28th east to Boyle Park Road, Boyle Park southeast to Rock Creek, Rock Creek south then east to Colonel Glenn, Colonel Glenn east to University, University north to 19th, 19th east to Filmore, Filmore south to 24th, 24th east to Adams, Adams south to 28th, 28th east to Washington, Washington south to 29th, 29th east to Asher, Asher east to Pine, Pine north to 22nd, 22nd east to the point of origin. ZONE 4 Begin at the Intersection of Scott Hamilton and 1-30. Follow 1-30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena then follow on imaginary line south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale, Mabelvale west to Chicot, Chicot south to school district boundary, school district boundary southwest, then west, then around the Alexartder City limits. then north. east. then north southeast to 1-430, to McHenry then east. Creek, then north, then 430 south to Fouche Creek, McHenry Creek Fouche Creek northeast to University, University south to 53rd, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, Benny Craig Park boundary south to Rosemore, Rosemore south to U.P. Railroad, Railroad south to Hoener, Hoener east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to the point of origin. ZONE 5 Begin at a point where McHenry Creek inters^ts the western most boundary of the school district. this boundary north to west Marldiam. Follow At this point follow an imaginary line north to Loyola Drive. At this point turn east on imaginary line to Napa Valley Drive, Napa Valley north to Hinson Road, Hinson east to an Green Mountain, Green Mountain south to Rainwood,I I f f I C? Cl ?  I 1 i t F P 0 M J 0 H N 1.4 . W H L IC E P P . H . TO Rainwood east to Grassy Flat Creek, 2 14? P . 0 -I Grassy Flat Creek east to 1-430, 430 north to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Grassy Flat Creek, Grassy Flat Creek generally east to Reservoir Road, Reservoir north to the southern boundary of Reservoir Park, go east along the southern boundary of Reservoir Park to Windy Drive. Follow an imaginary line south at the intersection of Windy Drive and the southern boundary of Reservoir Park Follow Grassy Flat Creek south to to Grassy Flat creek. an imaginary point due east of Arrow Ridge Court. Go east along this imaginary line to Gillett Drive, north on Gillett to Leewood, east on Leewood to Mississippi, south on to Mississippi to Rodney Parham, south on Rodney Parkham Kanis, west on Kanis to Shackleford, south on Shackleford to at Panther Branch creek. Panther Branch Creek follow an imaginary line due south to the northern tip of Talley Road, at this point turn east, follow an imaginary line to the interesection of west Romine Road and 44th. Follow 44th east to Weldon and go south on Weldon to 46th, at this point. follow an imaginary line south to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn Road to Barrow Road, turn north on Barrow Road to 28th street, follow 28th east to Boyle Park Road, go south on Boyle Park Road to Rock Creek, follow Rock Creek south and then east to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn to University, then south on University to Fouche Creek, follow Fouche Creek generally southwest to Interstate 430, go north on 430 to McHenry Creek, then follow McHenry Creek west to the point of origin. ZONE 6 Begin at the intersection of the western school district boundary line and west Markham. Follow the boudary line generally northwest turning to the east along the Little Maumelle River, follow the Little Maumelle River to the Arkansas River, follow J imerson the Arkansas River to Jimerson Creek, Creek south to Keightley, follow Keightley south to Hwy. 10, follow Hwy. 10 west to the eastern boundary of Reservoir Park, follow this boundary south then east then south then west to Reservoir Road, follow Reservoir Road to stoney Flat Creek, follow Stoney Flat Creek southwest to Rodney Parham Road, follow Rodney Parham northwest to 1-430, 430 south to Stoney Flat Creek, Stoney Flat northwest to Rainwood Drive, follow Rainwood west to Green Mountain, Green Mountain north to Hinson Road, Hinson Road west to Nappa Valley, Nappa Valley south to Mara Lynn Road. At this point follow an imaginary line west to Loyola Drive, at this point follow an imaginary line south to the point of origin.1 1 F P 0 N J 0 H H 14 . M H L K E P P . w . TO 2 14 7 P . y 5 I ZONE 7 Begin at the intersection of Jimerson Creek and the Arkansas River, follow Jimerson Creek south to Keightley, 10, go west on Hwy, part south to the southetn^bo^^^^^^^^^^^ EeBe--t PatK^, 2 imaginary line south east along the an Windy Drive, at this point follow +-O fitonev Flat Creek, follow Stoney to Stoney Flat Creek Flat Creek south to imaginary point follow an due west of Lyric Lane, : Lane and Gillett an pon\"-  imaqinary line from this point to Lyric follow Leewood Drive, follow Gillett north to Leewood, to Mississippi, follow Mississippi south to ' ?S!oi%?0 eaVt i?Sni\nKy\nfollow university south to 12th street, follow 12th street east to West Jonesboro West Jonesboro north to 1-630, follow I 630 e^st follow Elm Street north to Markham, follow to Elm Street, follow L-...------ Markham west to Walnut, follow Walnut north to Kavanaugh, follow Oak north to H, follow Kavanaugh east to Oak, follow H east to Midland, follow Midland north to I Street, follow I east to Martin Street, follow Fairfax Terrace east to follow Martin south to Fairfax Terrace, Luxxv^ --- -- line perpendicular to the east end of Lee an imaginary line perpendicular to tne ease enu Street, follow this imaginary line south to the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Blind, follow the northern boundary of the School for the Blind to the eastern boundary of the School for the Blind, at this point follow an imaginary line east to Cantrell Road and follow Cantrell Road to the Gill Street at this at this point, bUi btreei Bridge, follow the drainage ditch under the Gill Street Bridge to the Arkansas River, northwest to the point of origin. follow the Arkansas River I 7 0 T w L P . ? 5 1a PT c?  Pl p 1 /r63i 62,6 8 \" (S, 4 Z IS71 8 ^L3 3 ) :r (9 7^ -z4/^7 ' 3, 7 4- :8 8'=^o 'Z I, 8 2 00 I o 2 -S(^ o\u0026lt;? ^Z.o 373 2 4-39d - 6 2 4^-r4 i- o, 7 Io 3 S 4.0 2, 47o f 2 r \"^46 S'Siiz 3X I 11-74^T' I S'a IIReport to the Pulaski County Board of Education on Little Rock School Board Election Zones Metroplan November 4, 1992SUMMARY TABLES  Existing Boundaries  Proposals 1 through 4 ' yMl ^4Va^(^2. \" H (uu) 1 w - c r% |W O/ik \"Iv, i(^ y-OJlCURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES CEIectdIst 1 2 j4 5 1 TotSD Totpop 20901 20415 24989 31057' 30810 22382 23120 173674 PopVor -3910 -4396 178 6246 5999 -2429 -1691 0 7oVar -15.76% -17.72% 0.72% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 0.00% White 3194 4906 22107 28967 22974 15582 15159 112889 Ideal 24811 LRSD.XLS Block 17629 15306 2529 1550 7346 6390 7688 58438 %BP 84.35% 74.97% 10.12% 4.997o 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.657o Other 78 203 353 540 490 410 273 2347 7.OP 0.37% 0.99% 1.41% 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35% PROPOSAL#! Electdlstl 1 2 4 5 _6 7 TotSD Totpop 23710 24509 25229 25380 25319 24705 24822 173674 PopVor -1101 -302 418 569 508 -106 11 0 %Var -4.44% -1.22% 1.69%' 2.30% 2.05% -0.43% 0.05% 0.00% White 5201 7163 23772 23620 18978 16674 17481 112889 Block 18408 17097 1092 1296 5891 7585 7069 58438 %BP 77.64% 69.76% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 30.70% 28.48% 33.65% Other 101 249 365 464 450 446 272 2347 7oOP 0.43% 1.02% 1.45% 1.83% 1.78% 1.81% 1.10% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #2 Electdlstl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Tot pop 25431 24479 25229 25380 25319 23714 24122 173674 PopVor 620 -332 418 569 508 -1097 -689 0 %Var 2.50% -1.34% 1.69% 2.30% 2.05%' -4.42% -2.78% 0.00% White 5321 7837 23772 23620 18978 14757 18604 112889 Block 20007 16320 1092 1296 5891 8592 5240 58438 /oBP 66.67% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 36.23% 21.72% 33.65% Other 103 322 365 464 450 365 278 2347 %OP 0.41% 1.32% 1.45% 1.837o 1.7Q% 1.54% 1.15% 1.35% Page 1LRSD.XLS Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #3 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 24397 25091 23691 25339 25501 24122 173674 PopVar 722 -414 280 -1120 528 690 -689 0 %Var 2.917o -1.67% 1.13% -4.51% 2.13% 2.78% -2.78% 0.00% White 5018 9083 23646 22201 18908 15429 18604 112889 Black 20380 14973 1116 1064 5979 9686 5240 58438 %BP 79.82% 61.37% 4.45% 4.49% 23.60% 37.98% 21.72% 33.65% Other 135 341 329 426 452 386 278 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.40% 1.31% 1.80% 1.78% 1.51% 1.15% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #4 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 25764 24578 24216 24456 24663 24464 173674 PopVar 722 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 0 7oVar 2.91% 3.84% -0.94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% 0.00% White 5018 10084 23161 22518 19325 15550 17233 112889 Black 20380 15300 1112 1239 4681 8767 6959 58438 7oBP 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% Other 135 380 305 459 450 346 272 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.47% 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35% Ideal 24811 Page 2n 725B-O CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Record _______ _______72 ______ 53 ______ ______ _______W _______ _______55 _______7_^ 79 7^ _______ 58 _______7^ 46 ______ ______ ______64 102 ______ ______ 54 49 ______50 44 57 _____13 _____12 _____15 _____12 34 24 33 40 vpdlst 557K 567J 657H 6671 687D-O 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997A 4751 476J-a 486K-a 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 687C 687D 687J 2461 246J-a 246K 246L 3751 3751-0 475B 475H 475H-b 4751-0 total jx\u0026gt;p _______277 2406 609 3724 _______ 357 2579 _______112 2786 1546 _________0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 276 522 321 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 609 1400 __ 3274 1426 _______252 261 1058 1686 736 680 white pop ___1^ 22 52 1065 ___0 ___5 81 34 193 13 0 12 1071 584 25 36 998 260 487 90 320 75 1486 494 296 280 120 606 1390 3136 1352 243 261 982 1635 677 649 blackjsop ________276 2377 ________556 2637 ________ ________ 2489 77 2583 _______1532 __________0 489 458 _______1855 ________ 1087 ________ 11 _________28 ________ ________ _______1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 __________0 __________3 111 _________ __________4 __________0 _________ 15 48 13 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 100.00% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 3.99% 5.36% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.00% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 0.89% 6.52% 1.91% VP.XLS other_pop 0 7 1 22 ________0 0 9 1 10 1 ________0 0 7 ________16 1 3 57 ________5 _________7 16 35 ________2 _______ 5 15 13 2 ________3 1 _______ _________1_ ________5 ________0 ________9 36 11 18 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.81% 1.34% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 0.12% 0.49% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 1.98% 0.00%' 0.85% 2.14% 1.49% 2.65% celdist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 _3 3 20901 -3910 -15.76% 20415 -4396 -17.72% 3194 4906 17629 15306 84.35% 78 0.37% 74.97% 203 0.99% Page 1VP.XLS 30 35 27 103 41 29 105 42 100 43 1 2 3 28 4 10 5 12 9 14 18 \u0026amp; 19 6 32 7 16 23 31 86 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476F 476G 476G-a 676E 687D-b 687F 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246D 246E 246H 2461-a 246J 246L-a 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 475B-a 475H-a 1251 135G 245G-a 335E '335J 355C 355D 355F |355G 355H 1974 1565 1747 866 2628 1004 1880 329 100 1514 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 1757 4222 828 182 1323 7 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 1267 313 2365 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1914 1506 1625 623 1675 749 1700 174 57' 1153 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 1717 3837 825 182 1218 7 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 1085 313 2232 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 23 40 107 240 912 216 124 149 41 349 0 460 138 232 24 28 14 282 0 0 89 0 1 22 57 43 9 151 0 119 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 34.70% 21.51% 6.60% 45.29% 41.00% 23.05% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 0.80% 6.68% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 11.92% 0.00% 5.03%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26%| 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 37 19 15 3 41 39 6 12 0 139 41 38 26 18 26 103 3 0 16 0 0 33 5 42 19 31 0 14 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 38 36 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 1.56% 3.88% 2.98% 1.82% 2.00% 0.79% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 1.48% 2.44% 0.36% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.45% 0.00% 0.59% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63%, 2.41% 2.50%' 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 24989 178 0.72% 22107 2529 10.12% 353 1.41% Page 2 31057 6246 25.18% 28967 1550 4.99% 540 1.74%VP.XLS 21 71 52 59 65 59 93 101 101 94 70 68 11 81 92 69 88 84 91 82 87 99 85 ' 80 90 100 95 18 91 83 98 96 356B-a 535D 555A 565B 565C 725A 725B 726E-a 726K-a 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 7171 726F 756G 757H _ 956F 957G 725B-O 726D 726E 726J 726K 166C 816B 817C 817D 826A I 784 313 3533 1787 3435 785 550 _____0 4 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 1103 3143 3852 1837' 1402 573\n___24 926 3227 4007 2073 ____24 4011 3999 1846 2983 173674 704 266 1391 672 868 543 545 0 4 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 959 2773 2723 1130 619 369 ____23 530 2361 3465 1536 _____8 2611 1749 903 1973 112889 ___ 44 2092 1094 2543 239 ____3 0 ___g ___g 127 410 1422 242 446 607 128 321 1084 670 737 196 ___g 385 842 492 507 ___16 1342 2205 925 974 58438 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 74.03% 30.45% 0.55% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 11.60% 10.21% 28.14% 36.47% 52.57% 34.21% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% 12.28% 24.46% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 50.11% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 21 24 3 2 0 ___0 ___0 9 46 56 18 21 59 16 49 45 37 46 ___8 ___1_ 11 24 50 30 ___0 58 45 __18 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.70% 0.38% 0.36% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 1.45% 1.56% 1.17% 2.01% 3.28% 1.407o 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 0.98% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _5 6 6 6 6 _6 _6 6 _6 _6 6 7 J_ 1 1_ 1 7 J_ 1 1 1 30810 5999 24.18% 22974 7346 23.84% 490 1.59% 24811 Page 3 22382 -2429 -9.79% 15582 6390 28.55% 410 1.83% 23120 -1691 -6.81% 173674 15159 112889 76881 33.25% 58438 273 2347 1.18%VP.XLS Proposal #1 Record ______103 75 ______ ______ ______ 53 ______ 42 51 100 ______ ______ ____ ______ _______ _______ _______ 7^ _______ _______ _______73 46 ____ 41 ______ M ______ ______ ______ M ______ ______ M ______ 57 _______ 5 _______ 9 ______ 13 14 vpdist 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J-a 687K 691Q 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 4751 476F 476J-a 486K-a 565B 567J-a 587L 686A 687B' 687C 687D 687J 246D 246H '2461 '2461-a' total_pop I 1 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 357 2579 112 2786 1546 ___ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 522 1787 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 1757 828 609 182 white_pop ________ 1 _________22 52 1065 174 0 _________ 1153 5 ______ 81 34 193 _________ 13 0 _________ 12 _______1071 ________584 ________ 25 ________ 36 _______ 998 1675 _______ 487 672 ________320 75 1486 494 ________296 280 120 1717 825 606 182 black_pop ________ 276 2377 ________ 2637 149 287 _________ 41_ ________ ________ 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 1855 ________ 1087 ________ 912 ______ n 28 1094 ________ 613 1462 _ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 _________ 14 __________ 0 0 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% other_pop 3 07 1 22 6 ________ 0 ________ 2 _____ 12 ________ 0 ________ 91 10 _________1_ 0 ________ 0 ________ 7_ 16 ______ 1 ________ 3 _______ 41 ________ 5 7 _______ 35 2 _______ 5 _____ 15 13 2 _______ ________ 3 ________ 3 0 %OP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0,00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #Dh//0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58%' 0.12% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49% 0.00% eldistl 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 11 2 1 111 1 1 1 2 2 222 2 22 2 22 2 23 23 23710 -1101 -4.44% 5201 18408 77.64% 101 0.43% Page 4 24509 -302 -1.22% 7163 17097 69.76% 249 1.02% i B  B  VP.XLS 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 105 12 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-a 475B__ 475B-O 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-a 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-O 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A ~ 355H-a 356B 475A 135G ' 245G-a '335E 335J 355C '355D 355F '355G '355H 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 \u0026amp;9 3 111 61 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 2821 22 57 43 __ 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 0.21%' 3.39%' 4.70%' 0.00% 1.59%' 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 16 7 27' 7 __o' 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 37 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 1 34 39 72 84 38 36 1.21% 0.50% 0.82%' 0.49% 0.00%' 1.98%' 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 1 3 3' 3' 2 2 3' 3 33 3 _3 2 2 2 2 24 4 4444 4444 4 4 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 25229 418 1.69%' 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 5 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 69 102 88 84 91 82 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 78 97 83 96 356B-O 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 5661-a  7171 726F 726F-a 156G 156G-Q 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 726K 726K-a 766C 816B 817C 826A 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 321 1103 1778 1365 3581 271 1837 2002 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 4007 2073 4 24 4011 3843 2983 173674' 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 90 959 1637 1136 2527 196 1130 1002 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1650 1973 112889 65 44 2092 2543 ____ 0 127 410 1422 242 446 607 215 128 113 208 1010 74 670 980 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 492 507 0 16 1342 2150 974' 58438' 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 66.98% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 48.95% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 55.95% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 24 09 46 56 18 21 59 16 16 28 21 44 1 37 20 46 8 14 321 11 24 0 50 30 0 0 58 43 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00%, 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 4.98% 1.45% 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.00% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.12% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 6 6 66 6 6 6 666 66 66 6677777 77 777 17 1 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 I Page 6 24705 -106 -0.43% 16674 7585 30.70% 446 1.81% 24822 11 0.05% 17481 7069 28.48% 272 1.10% 173674 112889 58438 2347 3 S S VP.XLS I Proposal #2 Record 103 ______ ______ 72^ ______ 56 ______ 53 42 51 100 ______ ______ ______ ______ W 45 55 _______7_^ 7^ 76 ______ ______ M 7^ ______ ______ 47 ______ !_ 62 ______ M ______ ______ 69 102 ______ ______ ______ 54 ______ 49 ______ M 44 _______ 5 9 vpdlst 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-Q 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C 967D A15\\ A,76? A76^-a 486K-a 565B 5661 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 6Q7C 687D 246D 246H total_pop 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 _______ 522 1787 1370 321 _______ 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 .. white_pop ________ 1 22 ________ 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 ________120 _________ 5 ________ 8i 34 193 _________13 0 12 _______1071 _______ ________ 25 ________ 998 _______1^ 260 _______ 487 672 704 _________90 320 75 1486 _______ _______ 296 280 _______1717 825 black_pop ________ 276 _______ 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 ________ 287 _________ 41_ ________W 1599 ________ 352 2489 77 2583 _______ 1532 o' 489 ________ 1855 ________ 574 1087 ________ 912 11 _________ 28 _______ 1094 607 215 ________ _______ 1462 _______ 1922 4060 2770 1943 _________ 14 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 44.31% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% olher_pop ________ 3 07 1 22 6 0 ________ 2 _______ 12 2 ________ 0 ________ 9 1 10 1 ________ 0 0 ________ 7 16 ________ 1_ ________ 3 67 41 5 7 21 59 16 35 2 46 ________ 5 _______ 15 13 _______ 26 3 7oOP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.167o 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 4.31% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 1222 22 22 2 2 22 22 3 3 25431 620 2.50% 24479 -332 -1.34% 5321 7837 20007 16320 78.67% 103 0.41% 66.67% 322 1.32% Page 7 VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 1051 2 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 2461 2461-0 246J ,246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 4758-0 475H 475H-O 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468  246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 3568 475A 135G 245G-O 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148' 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 282 __ 1_ 22 67 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4,90% 1.94% 0.55%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 27 7 0 5 0 9 31 36 0 11 18 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 1030 33 5 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 77 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2,50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 333 3 3 3 33 3 3 44444 444 4444 55 5 55 5 5 25229 418 1.69% 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 8 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 26 38 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90| 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 355H 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 726J 726K 726K-a 166\u0026lt;Z 816B 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 ____ 926 3227 0 1778 1365 4007 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903' 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 144 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239' ____ 3 0 385 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00%, 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32%! 20.99% 11.60%' 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 55.14% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 __ 8 14 32 1 11 24 0 28 21 50 30 00 58 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 5 55 5 5 5 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 67 77 77 7 Tj 7| 7 7 7 1 1 J 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 Page 9 23714 -1097 -4.42% 14757 8592 36.23% 365 1.54% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347  n 725B-fl I VP.XLS Proposal #3 Record 75 72 67 56 53 42 ____ 51 100 43 57 ______ 63 45 55 74 79 ______ 76 66 ______ 58 ______ 73 46 38 ______ 41 29 ______ 64 69 102 ______ 54 49 50 44 _______ 59 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657 H 6671 676E 687D-O 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G, 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C. 967D  355H 4751 476F 476G 476J-a 486K-a 5661 5661-a 5871 686A 687 B 687C 687D 246D 246H total pop -+ - 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1669 1738 2628 1004 276 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 white pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 5 81 34 193 __ 13 0 __ 12^ 1071 584 25 36 1489 998 1675 749 260 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 280 1717 825 black_pop 276 2377 613 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 489 ________ 458 1855, 574' 1087 144 683 912 216 11 28 607 215 _______ 1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 14 0 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 8.63% 39.30% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% otherjaop 0 7 35 1 22 6 0 2 12 2 0 91 10 1 0 07 16 1 3 _______ _______ 57 41 39 5 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 13 26 3 7oOP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62%, 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00%i 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 2.16% 3.28% 1.56% 3.88% 1.81% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist3 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 1111111 12 22 222 2222 22 2 3 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 10 24397 -414 -1.67% 9083 14973 61.37% 341 1.40% VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 475B-a .7,  ' 40 30 35 27 103 10512 34 10 12 19 6 32 1 16 37 28 36 59 48 20 22 25 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 735E 135J 245A 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 135G 245G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 1689 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 ~ 313 611 649 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 1419 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 40 107 240 124 0 460 138 24 28 282 1 22 57 43 9 25 232 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 13.74% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 21 1 0 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 ?,1 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 38 7 34 39 37 12 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 2.25% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 11 25091 280 1.13% 23646 1116 4.45% 329 1.31% 23691 -1120 -4.51% 22201 1064 4.49% 426 1.80% VP.XLS 26 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 59 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565B 565E 566G 5661-1 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 1255 726K 726K-a 155C 816B 826A 2801 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 1787 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 1778' 1365 40071 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 672 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1094 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 61.22% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47%' 55.14% 50.11% 52.57%, 34.21%| 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 21 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 46 8 14 3 2 1 11 24 0 28 21 50, 30 0 0 58 36 2347 1.36% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.18% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 55 5 55 6 6 66 66 66 666 666 6 77 7 77 77 7 77 1 1 17 1 25339 528 2.13% 18908 5979 23.60% 452 1.78% 24811 Page 12 25501 690 2.78% 15429 9686 37.98% 386 1.51% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 71 72SB-O VP.XLS Proposal #4 Record _______75 72 ______ 56 M ______ ______ 51 100 43 57 ______ ______ ______ 55 W _______ _______7 ______ ______ 58 _______7^ ______ 46 106 103 ______ 47 107 ______ 1_ 29 ______ ______ ______ M ______ 69 102 ______ 54 ______ 49 50 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997/\\ 3751-0 475H-b 4751 4751-0 476E 476G 476J-O 486K 486K-O 5661 5661-0 587L 686A 687B 687C tOtQljX?P 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 _________ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 261 _______ 736 1738 680 2628 1004 276 1359 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 whife pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 ___5 81 34 193 13 ___0 12 1071 584 25 36 261 677 998 649 1675 749 260 903 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 blackjx\u0026gt;p 276 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 ________ 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 574 _______ 1087 __________ 0 48 6\u0026amp;3 13 912 ________ 226 __________2i 410 _________ ________ ________ 215 1462 iW 4060 2770 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29%' 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 0.00% 6.52% 39.30% 1.91% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 30.17% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% otherjaop 07 35 1 22 6 02 12 2 091 10 10 07 16 1 ________ 3 0 11 57 18 41 39 ________ 5 46 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.49%' 3.28% 2.65% 1.56%' 3.88%' 1.81%' 3.38% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% eldist4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 12 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 13 . Q Q   = VP.XLS KL i. L' r. J\nI I Si K r. 'p, b it k* I 5 \u0026amp;IK4UllbK\u0026gt;UiS 44 59 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 32 34 24 23 33 31 30 35 27 68 10512 3 4 10 12 19 67 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 687D 246D 246H 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 355H-a 3751 4758 4758-0 475H 475H-a 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 3568 475A 135G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 2236 1757 828 609 182 1323 1400 3274 14267 1164 252 1058 1267 1686 313 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 280 1717 825 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 1102 243 982 1085 1635 313 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 1943 14 0 0 0 89 3 111 67 0 57 4 67 151 15 0 23 40 107 240 124 ___0 460 138 232 24 28 282 1 22 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4,70% 0.00% 4.90% 1.59% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 13 26 3 3 0 16 7 7.1 1 05 59 31 36 0 37 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 38 18 103 0 33 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49%' 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00%' 0.43% 1.98%, 0.85%' 2.45%, 2.14% 0.00% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 2 3 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 333 3 333 34 44 4 44 444 44 55 55 5. 5 5 7^1(:A 3.84% 10084 15300 59.39% 380 1.47% nm Page 14 24578 -233 -0.94% 23161 1112 4.52% 305 1,24% 24216 -595 -2.40% 22518 1239 5.12% 459 1.90% VP.XLS 26 ^38 21 71 52 59 89 94 70 65 77 81 92 88 84 108 91 82 98 Q7 99 86 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 109 78 97 83 96 355G 355H 356B-O 535D 555A 565B 725A 526 476J 565C 565E 566G 566H 7171 726F 726 F-g 756G 757 H 817D 956F 957G 1251 725B 725B-O 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 72(:,y. 726K-a 756G-O 766C 816B 817C 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533' 1787 785 45 564 3435 3045 1964 2125 1103 1778 1365 3581 1837 1846 1402 573 2365 550 24 926 3227 ___0 4007 2073 ____4 271 ___24' 4011 ~3999 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 672 543 ____ 428 868 1567 1704 1658 959 1637 1136 2527 1130 903 619 369 2232 545 ____ 530 2361 _____0 3465 1536 4 196 _____8 2611 1749 1973 112889 198 144 ___ 44 2092 1094 239 ____0 127 2543 1422 242 446 128 113 208 1010 670 925 737 196 119 ____3 0 385 842 ____0 492 507 ____0 74 ___16 1342 2205 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 30.45% 0.00% 22.52%' 74.03%, 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 36.47% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 27.31% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 21 3 0 9 24 56 18 21 16 28 21 44 37 18 46 8 14 2 1 11 24 0 50 30 0 1 0 58 45 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.38% 0.00% 1.60% 0.70% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99%' 1.45%' 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 2.01% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 J 1 24456 -355 -1.43% 19325 4681 19.14% 450 1.84% 24811 Page 15 24663 -148 -0.59% 15550 8767 35.55% 346 1.40% 24464 -347 -1.40% 173674 17233 6959 28.45% 272 1.11% 112889 58438 23474^ RECBVi^O APR 2 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office Of Desegrecafon Moniiomig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LRSD'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellants, Lorene Joshua, et al., for their response in opposition to LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record state: 1. LRSD has submitted documents to this panel which are potentially prejudicial to the Joshua intervenor's appeal which is based upon the facts as they existed before the trial court. If the documents they submitted were an accurate portrayal of the facts which occurred after the trial of this matter, it would not be so offensive to the procedures of this court and fairness to the appellants. Such is not the case. 2. The alleged election results fail to inform the court of salient facts\nfacts which could not be developed at trialbecause they had not occurred, and facts which the district court was never informed of or ruled on. For instance, the alleged white candidate \"Gonzales \" was a write in candidate, not a registered candidate. His or her alleged defeat by the black candidate, the only candidate to file for the position. is neither surprising or inconsistent with racially polarized voting. In fact, if a white write in candidate can garner nearly 50% of the vote once the majority white voters discover that the only candidate to file is black, then Joshua would submit that that is evidence of a highly motivated racially polarized voting block. As to the other race in which the black candidate was allegedly defeated by a white candidate in a majority black district, Joshua would point out that the vote count in that race was surrounded by a great deal of controversy. One of the black candidates was initially declared the winner. It was later alleged that the vote counts were reversed and that the white candidate garnered the votes initially attributed to the black candidate. The reason that the challenge came so quickly was that most of the original vote attributed to the black candidate came from known white precincts. The white candidate could not believe he lost in the white areas. So he asked for a recount. LRSD has provided nothing but total vote counts. Where is the precinct analysis to show the actual correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate? If the LRSD wants this Court to consider these subsequent races. it should ask for a fair presentation of additional factsand let each side present its witnesses. But that, as LRSD knows, is not the function of an appellate court. Rather, LRSD deliberately sought to prejudice this panel with these allegations of race neutral elections knowing that supplementation of the record at this stage was inappropriate. Judge Wright did not consider either of these elections and neither should this court. Unfortunately, the damage is done. 2. The record on appeal is limited by the Rule 10(a), Fed.R.App.P. , to \"the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court.\" Rule 10(e) allows modification and supplementation of the record under very limited circumstances: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3. There are no provisions under the rules for submitting evidence which a party discovers after trial, or which occurs after trial as LRSD proposes to the court. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays the Court will deny LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record. Respectfully submitted. J'\u0026amp;hn W. Walker Mark Burnette Bar No. 64046 Bar No. 88078UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEh^ MAY 9 1994 ci Dssegregaiion Sontori.f\ng NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted,Jo! Ma: W. Walker ____________ Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No, 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esg. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esg. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker ( U). i'UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 Bar No. 64046 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702pprc 8 y MAY 2 4 1994 REPLY INTRODUCTION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSD errs when it claims, \"In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13, n. 7. The Charles Plaintiffs raised the \"packing\" and \"dispersion\" arguments in both Plaintiffs' Trial Brief, p. 1-2, and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 7-8, 15 25-2 6, presented to the Court below at trial. These documents are submitted to this Court in the Addendum to this Reply Brief to clarify that the record below was made on these arguments. LRSD cites Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993) as though only the Charles Plaintiffs' proposed plan \"demands close judicial scrutiny,\" because \"[t]he Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of the LRSD elections zones to create a third majority black zone.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13-4. Close judicial scrutiny is required, but it is because the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and LRSD have II given the racial make-up of the LRSD election zones paramount consideration since at least 1986 when LRSD proposed racially gerrymandered districts approved by Judge Woods. Race has been considered by all the parties in devising their respective alternative election zones. If race had not already been a factor in the PCBE plan - as LRSD might like for this Court to assume in light of its reference to \"the goal of a political system in which race no long matters,\" then close judicial I scrutiny would not be required. But here, race was foremost on the SSRSSBSminds of LRSD in 1986 when it proposed the single member zones approved by Judge Woods. It is precisely that race conscious plan that plaintiffs challenged in this case. Race was foremost on the minds of the \"Metroplan\" staff hired by the PCBE to devise new election zones - the only variable that is reported in the four plans submitted by Metroplan to PCBE was the racial characteristics of the zones. It is precisely because race was such major consideration in PCBE and LRSD's a deliberations and planning that makes close scrutiny of their plans necessary. That is especially true now that the district court has condoned a plan that is retrogressive on minority voting strength relative even to the 1986 plan that plaintiffs originally challenged in this case. I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR A \"SUFFICIENTLY LARGE\" MINORITY DISTRICT? The LRSD and the district court ascribe to a \"Catch 22\" standard for what constitutes \"sufficiently large and a geographically compact [minority] to constitute a majority in three LRSD elections zones.\" When it is the Charles Plaintiffs' burden, the district court and LRSD apply a standard of a minimum of 65% minority majority, \"otherwise, the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 16-7. As both amended  2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the \"totality of circumstances\" and to determine, based \"upon a searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality' [] whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This deteraination is peculiarly dependent upon thefacts of each case.\" Thornbugh v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2781, 92 L.Ed2 64 (1986). The district Court did not make a searching practical evaluation when it held plaintiffs to a 65% minimum minority population standard. It noted, in fact, that \"one of the zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE has a black population under 65%\" and. \"It is possible that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white 'crossover' votes, but this argument only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer from racially polarized voting, another necessary precondition for a successful voting rights claim.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order. P. 25 (emphasis added). The Court's analysis ignores the reality and importance of white cross-over voting even in situations where legally significant racially polarized voting exists because legally significant racially polarized voting is a matter of degree not absolutes: \"[I]n general a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 56, 106 S.Ct. at 2770 (emphasis added). To say that white crossover votes \"only goes to show\" that plaintiffs cannot prove legally significant racially polarized voting is erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recognition of its presence among otherwise disenfranchised minority voters. The Court cannot hold the existing alliances with the few white voters who do not vote with the white bloc vote inthe LRSD against the Plaintiffs without recognizing that their presence also lowers the threshold for establishing a viable minority district. Hence, the existence and reliance on some white crossover voting also \"goes to show\" that a less than 65% minority population in a district may still be a viable minority majority district in the face of otherwise racially polarized voting. No testimony or evidence was presented at trial to dispute Charles Plaintiffs' proof that racially polarized white bloc voting is the norm among LRSD voters. The statistical evidence of the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate was overwhelming despite the district court's unsubstantiated belief to the contrary. Mr. Lynch's use of correlation coefficients and r- sguare are regression analyses. They are accepted statistical methods without further analysis, see Solomon v. Liberty County Florida. 899 F.2d 1012, 1020, although here, many of the precincts Mr. Lynch relied upon were homogeneous precincts with sufficiently high correlation coefficients to provide the confirmation that the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate did constitute racial voting in numerous elections over time. His uncontroverted testimony was that there was political cohesion among minority voters and that there was white bloc voting. Mr. Lynch's expertise and opinion was not based solely on statistics however. He is a recognized expert on local government and local elections due to his academic and professional backgroundand his constant participation in local electoral politics. He, more than anyone in this community, knows the voting blocs, patterns and practices in Little Rock. His experience can indeed form the basis for many of the elements of Plaintiff's voting rights claims. Sierra v. El Paso Independent School District. 591 F.Supp. 802 (W.D.Tex. 1983)(Even more persuasive to the court than the testimony of the expert witness, however, was the testimony of the practical politicians who are thoroughly familiar with voting behavior in El Paso County.\") In addition. numerous other politician witnesses testified to the racially polarized voting patterns in Little Rock elections in this case. No one testified to the contrary. Clearly, central Arkansas minority voters have been successful in single member district with less than a 65% majority and the district court should not hold them to a higher standard while giving the PCBE and LRSD the benefit of a lesser standard. However, if a 65% standard is adopted for plaintiffs, defendants should be held to the same standard or the Court will be condoning retrogression of minority voting rights. The 1986 Court Order establishing racially specified election zones is an admission that prior to the adoption of single member districts, the LRSD minority voters had suffered voting rights violations. If not, there would have been no justification for LRSD's use of a race conscious remedy at that point. If a 65% standard is applied, then PCBE's 59% district, which the Court adopted, falls short of the standard and results in retrogression relative to the 1986 plan which was adopted to remedy prior votingrights inequities. The Charles Plaintiffs' alternative plan, with three minority majority districts ranging from 61.7 to 64.7% black population, would provide over 81% of the minority voters a voice on the LRSD board of directors. Far less opportunity to participate in the electoral process and elect representatives of their choice results from the adoption of only two minority districts as approved by the court because less of the minority population is contained in them\nmoreover, in two other zones which the Court adopted, substantial numbers of minority voters will continue to be submerged in 65 and 72% white zones. II. THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 1986 ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY OT THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION DISTRICTS By Order of April 17, 1989, Joshua Intervenors represent the class of \"all past, present and future African-American or black public school age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians.\" That Order was entered for the express purpose of approving the settlement then submitted to the court. LRSD Appendix, p. 1. Nothing in the settlement dealt with voting districts. That order, and the Stipulation adding Dale Charles in a representative capacity on March 1, 1889, obviously occurred after the 1986 Order adopting the election zones anyway. At no stage in the LRSD v. PCSSD litigation did Joshua Intervenors purport to represent the class of minority voters in the LRSD. The focus of the Joshua Intervenors has always been the rights of the minorityschool children, not their parents or guardian voting rights. Any representation that Joshua had in the case in 1986 would have been limited to protecting school age children and their parents and that representation does not cover all minority voters because it does not include minority voters who do not have school age children, \"past present or future. I in Pulaski County. What of the voting rights of minority voters with no children? Even if Joshua represented some voters' voting rights. which Joshua have never purported to do, they could never be held to have represented the class of minority voters explicitly excluded by the April 1989 Order. Only the Charles Plaintiffs, by a separate complaint filed on August 12, 1992, have purported to represent the class of minority voters in LRSD. It is absurd to hold all minority voters to an Order entered while they were not parties nor were they represented, and which was drafted and approved by the defendants named in their complaint. The law of the case doctrine simply does not apply to non-parties. It is not meant to restrain non-parties from asserting their rights as the district court has imposed it. The law of the case doctrine is intended to apply \"at subsequent stages of the same case.\" Memorandum and Opinion p. 27. The district court should not be allowed to hold non-parties to a standard set by these defendants simply by consolidating their 1992 action with a pending 1982 case. That, however. is what the district court has done. The whole purpose of the doctrine is to avoid \"re-litigation\" of issues\nbut here, no voting rights issues were ever litigated because no one had asserted a voting rightsclaim in 1986. As stated previously, the very need for the 1986 Order confirms that a voting rights violation existed prior to 1986. If one assumes that the 1986 Order was a necessary remedy to some violation, then it follows that elections prior to 1986 would have constituted voting rights violations. The fact of pre-1986 voting rights violations would be the case notwithstanding the district court's contrary findings in 1993 that there was no racially polarized voting or political cohesiveness among minorities, etc. Needless to say, at least in 1986, LRSD believed that a voting rights violation must have existed prior to 1986, or it would not have made race conscious decisions about the lines it was proposing to Judge Woods. If it did make race conscious decisions absent a voting rights violation, then the lines proposed at that time should be suspect on that basis. Re\ni^e^t JO^N 4? 3/23 - Litt\nectfull submitted WALKER, 1/Broadway bmrtted,\n\u0026gt; \u0026gt; i, P.A. I little Rock, Ar 72206 (501) 374-3758CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief has been hand delivered to the counsel of record listed below on this day of May, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Elizabeth Boyter, Esq. Arkansas Dept..of Education Little Rock, AR 72201 #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Jerry Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 72201 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 ---------------7^^' John X. Walker f:\\W\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8THC:\\U\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8TH ADDENDUMIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS* TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Defendants and the Court have recognized and conceded that the 1986 LRSD single member districts are out of compliance with the one-person one-vote requirement. A corrective plan must be adopted for that purpose in any event. Plaintiffs' will therefore focus on their allegation that the plan in current use, as well as the plan submitted to the court by the Pulaski County Board of Education, result in a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Courts have recognized two general methods by which minority group voting strength may be diluted: \"Dilution of racial minority voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minorityof voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority, [citations omitted].\" Thornburgh v. Singles. 478 U.S. 30, ___, n.ll, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d. 25 (1986)(The latter version of dilution is commonly called \"packing.\") \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% - 70% (the percentage considered necessary to ensure blacks a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice) may evidence \"packing.\" Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984)\nand see. Rybicki v. State Board of Elections of the State of Illinois. 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). Plaintiffs claim that both forms of dilution are at work under the current system, and alternatively, will continue under the plan submitted by the PCBE\ni.e., black voters are split up in several majority white zones to the extent that their votes are an ineffective minority in those zoned elections 33%, 28.5%, and 23.8% black population in zones 5, 6, and 7, respectively\nand they are overly concentrated in the two minority wards - 84.35% in the current zone 1, and 74.97% in zone 2. In the PCBE's recent submission to the court, zone 1 still retains a packed 79.82% majority black district in zone 1, and minority voters still dispersed in large pockets in zones 5, 6, and 7. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Proof Required to Demonstrate a Section 2 Violation: The seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Ginqles. the Court set out a three part test, and its rationale, which plaintiffs must meet to prove their case: First the demonstrate minority that group must be able to it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voter's inability to elect its candidates. [footnote omitted] [citations omitted].. . Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive. If the it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citation omitted] Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it- in the absence of special circumstances, the minority candidate running unopposed. such as see. infra, at 57, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's omitted] preferred candidate. [citations In establishing this last circumstance. the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. 478 U.S. 50-1, 106 S.Ct. 2767, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-7. Besides \"running unopposed,\" the Supreme Court referred to other \"special circumstances\" affecting the third precondition. such as, \"incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting [to] explain minority electoral success in a polarized context.\" Id. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2770. It cautioned that \"[t]his list of special circumstances is illustrative, not exclusive.\" Id. at 57, n.26. 106 S.Ct. 2770. The Senate Report expressly states that election of a few minority candidates does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. noting that if it did. the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a safe minority candidate.\" Id., 106s.ct. at 2779. And in a footnote, the Court quoted Zimmer v. McKeithen. 485 F.2d. 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) with approval\n\"...Such success might. on occasion. be attributable to the work of politicians. who. apprehending that the support of black a candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election.\" Id., 106 S.ct. at 2780. The appointment of a black board member is comparable to campaigning for that person because in subsequent elections, he gains the benefit of incumbency. a special circumstance which can explain his success. In Gingles, the Court went on to assess the sustained electoral successes in North Carolina House District 23 under the standards it had announced: 1 In some situations, it may be possible for  2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representative, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections\nthey failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consecfuentlv, we believe that the District Court erred as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enioved in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District. Id. at ___, 106 S.ct. 2780 (emphasis added). The \"evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections,\" which the court refers to, was the fact that each black candidate ran essentially unopposed. See. Gingles V. 1 House District 23 was a three member district in which a black person had been elected in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. Holding one seat was essentially proportional representation for black voters in the district.Edmiston. 590 F. Supp. 345, 370 (E.D.N.C. 1984)(\"Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed.\" Id.) However, there was no evidence in the record to explain the success of black candidates in 1972, 1974, and 1976. Had all of the elections been uncontested, the Court presumably would have affirmed the lower court on House District No. 23 as well. It is clear that the Court identified at least three \"special circumstances\" that may satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives: incumbency, uncontested elections and the utilization of bullet voting. Clearly there are more though. In addition to the three Gingles factors discussed above, the legislative history of  2 enumerated several other objective factors to guide courts in analyzing whether there is a violation of minority voting rights under  2: (1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote. or democratic process\notherwise to participate in the voting in the (2) the extent to which elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized\n(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti- single shot practices provisions. or other voting or procedures that may enhance opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of theminority group have been denied access to that process\n(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinders their participate effectively in ability to the political process\n(6) whether the political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals\nmembers of (7) the extent the minority group to have which been elected to public office in the jurisdiction (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the sate or political subdivisions' use of such voting qualifications, prerequisite to voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. S.Rep. No. 417, at 28-9, H.R.Rep.No. 227, at 30, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. \u0026amp; Ad. News at 206-7. In light of these extensive factual underpinnings in vote dilution claims, this Circuit has adopted a stringent requirement for factual and legal reasoning from the lower courts to make its appellate review possible: Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision in such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the Rule 52 (a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity the reasoning and the subsidiary factual reasoning. conclusions underlying their Buckanaqa v. Sisseton Ind. School District. No. 54-5, South Dakota. 804 F.2d 469, 472 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Velasquez v. Citv of Abilene. 725 F.2d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 1984). B. Where the Parties Stand on Remedial Plans\nIf the court finds either a violation of the constitutionalEfl one-person one-vote requirement or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then the court ordinarily must give the responsible legislative body an opportunity to adopt a remedial plan for future elections. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). The desire to give \"the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise an acceptable remedial plan\" is traceable to Supreme Court precedent in state legislative reapportionment cases but that deference may be lost or ignored by the \"appropriate governmental agency\": \"reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and [] judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.\" Id. at 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). A court owes no deference, however, if the responsible legislative body fails to act according to its legal authority, or acts without legal authority. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 96 S.Ct. 1083 (1976). In Wise V. Lipscomb. 437 U.S. 535, 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 411, 420-1, 98 S.Ct. 2493 (1978), Justice White explained summarized the distinction in two cases\n\"In [East Carroll Parish! the District Court instructed the East Carroll police reapportionment plans. jury and school boards to file arrangements which the court adopted. They both submitted multi-member We held that the District Court erred in approving a multi-member plan because \"when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances, [citation omitted]. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not reapportion themselves and. furthermore. could purport to not evenlegally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under these circtimstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the eguivalent of a legislative act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political process of the community in guestion. 437 U.S. at 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 420 (White, J.). The situation facing this Court is most like that in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall and can be thoroughly distinguished from Wise v. Lipscomb. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) has the authority to adopt a plan, but has explicitly refused to do so. It has passed a motion merely to \"submit\" one possible plan to this Court for this Court to approve for implementation and order its adoption. (See \"Minutes of the December 29, 1992 PCSB Meeting Plaintiff's Exhibit And see Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion For Approval of Election Zones. and Pulaski County Board of Education's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court's Order of February 16, 1993 at 2, paragraph 8\n\"The Board of Education is not an adversary in this proceeding. It is a party only because Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-607 gives it responsibility to create election zones. That authority was overridden by this Court in 1986, and this Court has the final authority at this time.\") Consequently, PCBE has abandoned its duty and authority to this Court. Plaintiffs do not agree with the PCBE's interpretation that this Court has \"overridden\" its authority, but can only accept its current position as stated in these pleadings that it is not asserting any authority to adopt any plan. The PCSB does notpurport to have reapportioned the LRSD through any legislative authorization. In keeping with this position, PCBE defendants passed no resolutions to indicate that the PCBE adopted this proposed plan. They claim to act merely as agents of the Court, not within their statutory capacities in submitting this proposal. Nevertheless, there are clear statutory methods by which the PCBE, or the LRSD for that matter, could have adopted a legitimate \"legislative\" proposal. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 and -630,2 respectively. But neither has chosen to do adopt a plan even after this Court's September Order directing the PCBE to do so. These are the only ways by which the defendants may legislate an alternative to the current electoral mechanism which plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Having failed to produce a validly approved legislative plan. the PCBE's plan can only be viewed as a recommendation of the individual members of the board. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles. 918 F.2d 763, 776 (9th Cir.) cert, denied. Ill S.Ct. 681 (1990)(\"[T]he plan that the Board submitted to the district court could not, under the County's charter, have been considered a Board Redistricting plan, because only three members voted in favor of 2 Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-630 states: \"The board of directors of any school district [] authority to provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the vote Fof the board] that a portion of the board shall be elected by zone, at-large, or a combination thereof... Every such resolution adopted by the board of directors of such district shall adopt a plan of election for members of the board of directors which will cause the selection procedure to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.\"it, not the four required for such matters.\" Id.) Here, the board refused to even adopt the plan according to the statutory authority which this Court cited to indicate that it \"is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD zones.\" Thus it does not claim to have adopted a plan at all, but as submits one for the court to adopt. Consequently, PCSB's December 29, 1992, proposal gains legal effect only if this Court orders the implementation of that particular plan through its equitable authority. East Carroll Parish, supra. The Court should evaluate the 1986 zones under the totality of the circumstances because that is only plan currently in effect in LRSD. If it finds a voting rights violation under that plan, then the question is whether the court will have fully remedied the violation if it adopts the PCBE's plan. Plaintiffs submit that that plan will not remedy the current voting rights violations. See Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 217 (E.D.Ark. 1989): We know, and have found in this opinion, how many [single member districts with a majority black voting age population] can be created, and we also know that their lines can be drawn so as to make them compact and conti' therefore, a sort of presumption that an OUS. There is, Id. II. contain that number of majority black districts. Ian adopted should The law as Applied to the Facts A. The Minority Population is Geographically Concentrated Such That Drawn that Out of Seven Single Member Districts Can be e Majority Black. The plaintiffs will established that black minority voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute amajority in three out of seven single member districts in LRSD. Plaintiffs' demographer, will testify that an alternative districting plan which he drafted based upon 1990 census data creates three districts in which the minority population makes up 64.7%, 64.0 Q, s and 61.7 majorities, respectively. The 1990 census shows that the black voting age population (BVAP) in these districts would be only about 4% lower than the black percentage of the total population. This alternative plan clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs met the first of the three factors the Supreme Court identified in Thornburgh v. Ginqles. Plaintiffs point out that this plan is merely meant to persuade the Court that such districts are feasible. The PCBE would have to draft the actual boundaries of the wards if the court finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Of course. the PCBE could agree to accept the plaintiffs construction or a variation thereof. B. Minority Political Cohesiveness and the Usual Defeat of the Minority Preferred Candidates The other two Gingles factors are subsumed in Senate Factors 2 and 7, and will be discussed together. Evidence of racially polarized voting is the linchpin of a section 2 vote dilution claim and is relevant to establish two of the three elements set forth in the Gingles decision - political cohesiveness, and ability of white majority to usually defeat the black preferred candidate. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2769. The second condition required under Gingles. proof that the minority group is politically cohesive, will be amply demonstrated by Mr. Lynch's analysis of voting results in local elections overa period of the last eight years. \"A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate is one way of proving political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim [citation omitted] and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the context of  2.\" Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2769-70. Plaintiffs will present statistical analysis of election results for Little Rock City Board elections and LRSD elections in which a black candidate ran against a white candidate.^ Numerous courts have recognized the importance and relevance of \"exogenous\" elections when polarized voting cannot sufficiently be shown with the elections in the particular forum being challenged. See, Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. Westwego. 872 F.2d 1201, 1207-10 (5th Cir. 1989)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1987). The Little Rock City Board of Directors elections are particularly relevant elections in this case because these elections are local in nature, they encompass nearly the identical voters who make up the school district electorate, and they confirm the racially polarized voting data obtained in the two school board elections that were appropriate to analyze. Without exception, elections in Little Rock, Arkansas, are characterized by racially polarized voting. Voting in the City of 3 Although it is the minority's preferred candidate that is at issue, none of the courts, including the Supreme Court in Gingles. considered \"whites only\" elections. Therefore, white versus white elections were not analyzed by the plaintiffs in this case, nor should they have been. East Jefferson Coalition v. Jefferson Parish. 691 F.Supp. 991, 1000 (E.D.La. 1988) citing. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1310, (E.D. Ark 1988).Little Rock Board of Directors races, as well as relevant LRSD races, is extremely racially polarized. In all but one election for which precinct data was available (1986 to present), a statistically significant correlation exists between the support for the black candidate in a precinct group and the percentage of the voting age population in the precinct that is black. The higher the percentage of black voting age population. the higher the vote percent for the black candidate. The analogous correlation exists in the white precincts, indicating white block voting. The higher the white percentage of the voting age population, the higher the vote for the white candidate. Lynch's analysis, a bivariate regression analysis, provides the same detailed statistical basis for a finding of political cohesion that the Supreme Court and other courts have relied upon. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2768 and 2771\nSee also, Campos v. Citv of Baytown, Texas. 840 F.2d 1240, 1245-6, \u0026amp; n.9, aff en banc, 849 F.2d (5th Cir. 1988)(\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from .52 to .90, with a mean of .76, and \"r-squared\" ranged from .27 to 81, with a mean of .61.)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d at 499-500, n.7 and 8. The degree of polarization as measured by the \"r\" and \"r-square\" presented for the City of Little Rock and LRSD board of directors elections (\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from ___ to , and \"r-squared\" values range from to ) is comparable to that shown in Gingles and Campos. Because of the high degree of bloc voting by black voters in city and school board elections over an extended period of time.the plaintiffs will have established that the black minority is politically cohesive. This evidence will successfully establish the second of the three Gingles preconditions. The plaintiffs will also meet their burden of proof in establishing the third Gingles condition: \"that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of soecial circumstances. such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, 92 L.Ed.2d, 51, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.\" Proof of white bloc voting was equally as strong as black bloc voting. The correlation coefficients and precinct data are overwhelming. Absent special circumstances. only the black candidates that have run in majority black wards have been successful. For instance, Lottie Shackelford, a black city board member. was able to win in city board races, but she was first appointed by an all white board. In elections since then, she has also had the benefit of being an incumbent or running unopposed. The election of black candidates from majority black school district wards are also \"special circumstances\" which explain why these elections are not accurate reflections of the minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice in LRSD elections. C. Other Relevant Senate Factors 1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touches the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process\nSince reconstruction, official discrimination has ranged from total disenfranchisement of black voters - to whites only primaries- to poll taxes\nall were designed to severely limit black voting rights. Perkins v. City of West Helena. 675 F.2d. 201, 211 (Sth Cir) aff'd mem.. 459 U.S., 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982). As the courts have held, these facts need not be proven anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F. Supp. 196, 204 (E.D.Ark.) aff'd mem.. ___U.S. ____, 109 S.Ct. 548 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988) (\"We do not believe that this history of discrimination, which affects the exercise of the right to vote in all elections under state law, must be proved anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act.\" Id. quoting. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). Therefore, this court should take judicial notice that there is history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas which a necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process even today. Id.\nsee also. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). 11. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n\" Legislation from the 1987 Arkansas General Assembly established a majority vote requirement for all school board elections thereafter. Acts 1987, No 845,  1,2, Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (1991 Cum. Supp.) See generally. Jeffers v. Clinton. 740 F.Supp. 585, 594 (E.D.Ark. 1990)(Three Judge panel opinion finding that \"inference of racial motivation is inescapable,\" in that Arkansas municipal run-off statutes from 1975, 1983, and 1989 were directly responsive to black successes in plurality elections andthat \"this series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity.\" Id. at 595 (Arnold, Richard, J. writing for the majority)). Although a majority vote requirement is not a per se violation of section 2, the potential for dilutive effects is increased when the three Gingles factors exist, as they do here. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2767. 111. The extent to which the membership of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n\" The history of discrimination in education and employment is well known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the South, and Arkansas in particular. As a hangover of this history. black per capita income in Pulaski County in 1990 was roughly 50% of the per capita income for whites. Disparities in educational achievements are well known to this Couirt, and are traceable to historic discrimination in the public education provided by the LRSD. Poverty rates and income levels in every category also show the present day effects of the history of discrimination on these socio-economic indicia. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits - ___.) \"Courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where the minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2776 (citations omitted). The \"hangover from this history necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process.\" 687 F.Supp. at 1317.CONCLUSION Analyzing the totality of circumstances in LRSD reveals that the political realities do not afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice as are afforded white voters. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L^ 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength. and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr. , Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended. are adversely affected by the 2 . present and proposed plan for electing school board members, adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which are The4 sufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date]. 3 . The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for I the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County , School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote. 11 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. II that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court.\" The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit.\" 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7,^1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33 g, *0  His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect, for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights 19. allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The \"ideal\" zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote.\" They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2) . Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens. approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are a incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form. content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments. and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words. the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9 were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from % these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34. There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent (73%) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates, PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 to . 9 See Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic) , the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record. Little Rock has a long history of electing two African Tkmerican persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28% of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case, no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but. by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members 42. have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears, however, to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this puirpose by statute, (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 15The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants, the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no 44 . standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore^ on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges greater voice in a governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the II packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to opportunity to (the ensure elect percentage blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rvbicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs, does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand, has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval. or otheiswise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5% figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53. It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within fortyfive (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will seirve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21fl W8M K'* \u0026lt;M  e ft , * c. 1994 ii--5ijA: c,  4. {994  Ottfce of Desagfegatiof MonilorU^ Office Of Desegresaiicn Moniitjjiiig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT fl NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 11 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. w ^aiia ra W 41IM 1994 NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office of Desegregation Moniloriag a APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE II APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No, 64046 II JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 0 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 flUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *r\" NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. RECBIVPD NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. Jlih! 2 I99X NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office (rf Desegregation Monitoring 41 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE H REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 n DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 ] Il RECEIVED JUN 2 1994 ngiat C^sagrfi^jation Moniioiing 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 4 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE 4 APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX 4 4 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 4 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 4 4 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, AUGUST 23,1992 1 Around Arkansas U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SU- san Webber Wright on Monday Sept\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_429","title":"Election zone","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":["1992/1994"],"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","School board members","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"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/429"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["10 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFrom the desk of Debbie Crownoverr MR. CECIL BAILEY, PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT (dou nli^ tf^oarcl Education ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 Ai\" DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover \u0026gt; MEMO TO: Members, Pulaski County lard of Education RECEIVED FROM: DATE: Ids. Debbie Crovmover,^Secretary December 21, 1992 DEC 2 2 1992 SUBJECT: Minutes of 12/15/92 2nd Quarterly Meeting Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enclosed, please find the following: 1. 2. Minutes from the 12/15/92 regular second quarterly meeting Copy of Order to Pulaski County Treasurer concerning CD investment Please review the minutes and let me know if you feel changes need to be made prior to the next meeting. Special Called Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, I MMZ- ar I ( Ml p M T-n -Pl ____________________ z\u0026lt;,  1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the 3rd floor conferenc: room, 201 So. Broadway, L.R. ihis meeting was scheduled for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal from those presented, to formally present to Judge Susan Webber Wright for her consider- atim to set the new boundaries of the Little Rock School District school board member election zones. Please let me know in advance of this meeting if you will be unable MEIRRY CHRISTMAS to you all, and I'll see you on the 29th. to attend. cc: Larry Vaught, P.C. Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD John Walker, Attorney Jim McKenzie, Metroplan 7DATE 12/15 2nd Qtr. County Board 09 of Education _________________IP ________________________________ KINO or MIKTIWa ,T.Mr,_Cccil Iki.i.ley, ITe.y. 201 So. Broadway, Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR PAGE_ 1 Mr. Cecil Bailey__ Dr. George.McCrary, Klember -Vice Pxcs.___ MKM ahskn , None Mr. Thnnwff RTOfrp.hton (part) Mr. Grainger Mi 11 jams. Member Dr. Martin Zolde.s.sy, Member__ OTHEnS PRESENT. Mr, T .A i Mr. Chris Heller SD --Cynthia. Howell.,. Ark^Democrat^Gazext. Dehhip \" . others: Crnwnnvpr, RnarH .Spprpt-flry __ See attached sign-in sheet INDEX NOTATIONS MINUTES Board of Education met, for its regular second quarterly meet- ing of the 1992/93 school year, on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 1:00 o.m. in the 3rd floor conference room of the Pulaski County Administration Bldg. All members were present to conduct business and Mr. President, called the meeting to order. Cecil Bailey, the Board Minutes of the 9/15 regular first quarterly meeting and of the 10/6 and 11/6 special called meetings were previously mailed to each Board Member for Copies of the minutes from the 11/30 and 12/7 public hearings ers for review. review. . ---------od were in their fold- Mr. Bailey asked for a motion to accept the minutes Mr. Williams so moved to ... - seconded the motion. --------- as approved. approve the minutes of all five meetings. Mr. Broughton It was voted and passed unanimously. Call to Order Minutes approved: 9/15, 10/6 11/6, 11/3 12/7/92 After some discussion Mr. Bailey asked for\n1 as to the current balances in the County Common School Fund, a motion to approve the distribution of the 2nd quarter allotment of State Apportionment money to the school districts. . ,, J --  ....... Ms. Crownover An Board the budgeted $3.00 per ADM had been reduced by the State Dent .s9 Qft Fiflr AHM ____________________T______T __________ . . , _ . - H  no r- pel nyu naa oeen reouced by the State Dept, to $2.98 per ADM for the current school year. She said she would adjust to balance with the actual distribution at the June, 1993 distribution. State App. allocation $41,935.50 distribute the $41,935.50 to the schools as soon as the allotment is received from the state funds.   ... Mr. Broughton seconded the motion. It was voted and approved. Next, feUey asked for a motion to approve the distribution of $2.00 per ADM AT* Sill K / H (Ml T mm ny-,,n__________r'i_____. ... . or $111,828.00 from the County Common School Fund to the school districts, was asked whether or not the funds were available before the end of the Crownover said that a little over $6,000.00 would still be the distribution. It year. Ms. seconded the motion. -----  in the account after Mr. Williams moved to distribute the money now. Mr. Broughton :. It was voted and unanimously approved. The prepared financial statement (as of 11/31/92) showed Cf. ZT ------------------------------- 3 current balance of \u0026lt;17 O9A County Common School Fund (with today's distributions), and _^7_^026.88 in the Special limd County Board of Education. These two accounts will cashed CD's plus interest at the end of December\n$300,000.00 and $200,000.00 respectively. ------------------ These two accounts will Mr. Bailey discussed with the Board the status of the $500,000.00 invested into CD s. The County Treasurer is to cash them in and deposit the funds plus interest into the proper accounts at maturity. After some discussion, Mr. Broughton steo- npH Tn na Proc 4 z-1 f- S v-.  n____ . i . . __ ped in as President in order for Mr. Bailey to make a motion, invest $500,000.00 as follows: He moved to re- $300,000.00 from the County Comnon School Fund $200,000.00 from the Special Fund, County Board of Education invested, by the Pulaski County Treasurer, Pat Tedford for the PiJaski County Board of Education, in 90-day CD's or T-Bills, whichever would yield the highest interest. \u0026gt;-- At maturity, the Treasurer is to deposit the ^oi^ts invested and interest earned back into the respective accounts. Ul'l I I 1 mmi-i X. 1 * Williams seconded the motion. Mr. It was voted and approved and Mr. Bailey resumed his position as President for the duration of the meeting. Cnty. Cmn. School Fnd $111,828.0( Financial statement Reinvest $500,000.0(DATE, 12/15 i_92 PAGE. 2 BIND OP MIKTIND PNiaiDINO OPPICBR OTHERS PRESENTi. INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Mr. Bailey then asked Ms. Crownover to report on the GED testing for 1992. With statistics in through 12/9/92, the following figures were noted for this test center (#0601): the GED testing for 1992 Total pre-tested---------------------- (31% of those 284 scheduled) Total taking actual test--------- Total passing actual test------- 87 75 47 or 63% Total falling actual test---------------------------28 or 37% The Board discussed the \"no-shows\" of those scheduled to take the laxoL-Lioocu une nu-snows oi tnose scneOuled pre-test. Ms. Crownover said it is quite a problem in scheduling, because of limited testing days and limited seating space. F''-     - - * day to make up for the no-shows. up on She said she already over-books\" each pre-test She felt one reason some don't bother to show their scheduled day is because Arkansas doesn't charge for any part of the testing, so they don't have anything to lose when they don't show up. All those who are scheduled for the actual test have already taken and passed the 1 fsTw x* 1.1 !_ uAiXV4. die pre test so 1UU% of them show up. No action was required by the Board on this subject. The next item on the agenda was for the Board to discuss the current Little Rock School District election zone lawsuit. Tlie Board had said, in the last public hearing, that they would not be making a decision on which proposal to present IlinOQ ClIC'OT-i LTnkkr, T.7w-4 *- _ _ __1 ~ Judge Susan Webber Wright, at this regular meeting. to Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, reminded the Board that all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, had agreed to the 1986 Federal Court order assigned the current LRSD election zone boundaries. The zones, at that time comported with the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Heller informed the Board that, even though the Board discussed allowing Mr. Walker more time to prepare a compromise proposal, the LRSD was not interested in any compromise that would be based on rac Mr. Heller asked the Board to pick one of Metroplan's proposals and present it to Judge Wright as quickly as possible, so the postponed election could be reschedule He said that April and May of 1993 would be a crutial time for LRSD because of budgeting, so they would like to have the election as soon as possible. that GED test update LRSD election zone discussion Vaught/ Heller on rac :. 1. Mr. Vaught warned the Board that if they make race a factor in their choice t\" nmr r.fi 1 1 .J . ii. they will run the risk of Judge Wright telling them they did not do what she askec. Since there has been no prior finding of discrimination with regard to the school] election, race should not be considered, just the one-man/one-vote concept. Mr. Vaught told the Board Judge Wright would probably hold a hearing after the proposal was presented to her, and that, at that time, Mr. Walker could submit hi' proposal to her if he wished to do so. Mr. Heller said he felt Judge Wright woulc expedite her ruling so the election could be underway. After more discussion, the Board President set a Special Called meeting for Tues. December 29, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal of new election zones to present to Judge Wright. Mr. Bailey will meet with Mr. Nagel prior to that date and get copies of any compromised changes in Mr. Walker's proposal, to the Board members prior to the 12/29 meeting. Special Called meeting 12/29 to choose proposalDATE 12/15 .9^ HINO or UKIYIM4 M PAGE. HRvatoiNO orrictn 3 J OTHER* PRESENTt INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Next, Ms. Crownover told the Board she would have 1992 Code of Ethics forms pared for each member to review and sign, at the 12/29 meeting. preparea tor As soon as they sign their forms, Ms. Crownover will notarize their signature and file the forms with the County Clerk after January 1, 1993 and before January 31, 1993. Code of Ethics After the Special Called meeting of 12/29/92, the next regular third quarterly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. There being no other business to discuss, Mr. Broughton made a motion to adjourn tthhee mmeeeettiinngg.. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary December 21, 1992 Date Next reg. meeting 3/16/93 f^ufaiLi Cdoun iSoaJ of ^ducation MR. CECIL BAILEY. PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING  201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 MEMO DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover TO: Members, Pulaski County Board of Education FROM: Ms. Debbie Cro\\mover\u0026lt; Secretary SUBJECT: DATE: Minutes of the 12/29/92 Special Called Meeting/ Code of Ethics/ Metroplan-4 Proposal Submitted to Judge Wright January 6, 1993 Enclosed is your copy of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting of 9Q Tom. Please review them and let me know if you see any changes that need to be made. December 29, 1992. Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, has subnitted the proposal to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright this 6th day of January, 1993. .(See attached) Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, informed as to the Board's next step. I will keep you Also enclosed is your copy of your recorded Code of Ethics form. T copy of this with your records in this office should you ever need another I also have a copy. cc: minutes only Mr. Larry Vaught, Pulaski County Attorney Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD Mr. Jolin Walker, Attorney \\/llrs. Ann Brown, ODM Mr. Jim McKenzie, Metroplan RECESVED JAN 8 1993 Office of Desegregation MonitoringDATE. 12/29/ ,a_92 Special Called 201 So. Broadway Suite 300 Meeting, County _________ Bd. of Education L.R., AR 72201 KINO OP HCKTIN4 \"1 MEMBER* rREENTMr. Cecil Bailey^ Prp tfc, Thomas Broughton Vice Pre: Dr. George McCrary, Member __Mr. Grai nger Wi11i aws_________ Dr. Martin Zoldessy--------- .q .q WHCNC HILO MEMBERS ABSENT_______ PAGE___L Mr. Cecil Bailey PNiaiDiNO OPFicin Mr. Tarry Vaught, Attorney,? Mr. John Walker, At-tnmpy ___________ iir. Chris Heller. Attorney, LRSD______ Mrs, Ann Brown, PPM OTHERS PRESENT] Cyiitliia ifowell\nAik. DeiiiucraL-Gazetcs Channel 4-Eyewitness News Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary OTHERS: ~ ' See attached MINUTES pie Pulaski County Board of Education met in a Special Called Meeting. Tuesdav December 29, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the office boardroom. The purpose of the mating was for the Board to make their decision on which presented proposal of  uiicj-x UCI.XOXUU uii wiixcn presenceu proposal, new election zones for the Little Rock School District, to present to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright. All members were present to conduct business, called the meeting to order. Mr. Bailey, the Board President, Mr. Bailey gave the Board some extra time to study a new proposal (Walker-4) that was received earlier that morning. The new Walker-4 proposal had 3 predominantly INDEX NOTATIONS Call to Order black zones, 4 predominently white zones, all incumbents were within the boundarie\nof a separate zone, and the geographically. zones were numbered similarly to the current zones. Mr. Bailey then read the Federal court mandates ordered by Judge Wright rir. Ddrxey Luen leau cne reoerai .Judge Wright. He also _ listed the criteria the Board set for Metroplan when they were requested to studv m irronf' TDCH a1 _________3 ____i_____ t f \\ ' the current LRSD election zones and submit a proposal(s) if the current found to be out of compliance with the one-man/one-vote concept. ones were A discussion followed about the various proposals that were submitted. If Pro- Summary Federal Court Orde \u0026amp; eight proposals posal Walker 4 or any one of the four Metroplan proposals is chosen, the reschedul id l^ction would be for zones 2 \u0026amp; 4 only, as would have been the case had the repula  L992 election for the LRSD not been postponed. Mr. Thomas Broughton made a motion for the Board to submit the Walker-4 proposal to Judge Wright for approval. Mr. Bailey asked for a second to the motion, was made\nthe motion died. Walker-4 motion die None Mr. Grainger Williams made a motion for the Board to submit both Walker-4 and 1 Metroplan-4 proposals to Judge Wright. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion. The Boan asked Mr. Vaught if presenting two proposals to Judge Wright would be acceptable , practice. Mr. Vaught said the order was somewhat unusual because there weren't i many guidelines added. He said there was nothing in the Order that would point to the fact that Judge Wright anticipated more than one proposal would be submitted to her\nhowever, neither was that action prohibited. would be a call for the Board to make. Mr. Broughton said he felt strongly that the Board should make their decision and present only one proposal, even if it was not one he favored, because he felt that was the Board's job and that the Board should not ask Judge Wright to make up their minds for them. Walker-4 \u0026amp; Metro.-4 combomotion fai. Mr. Vaught said it A vote' was called. The motion failed 3 to 2. Williams and Dr. McCrary, voting voted no to break the tie. Voting for the motion was Mr. no was Dr. Zoldessy and Mr. Broughton. Mr. Baileyi DATE. 12/29/ ,9_92 PAGE_ 2 I KIND OF MEETINa MCMDCRS FRE8CNT WHERE HELD MEMSCRS ABSENT _ FRESiOINO OFFICER OTHERS PRESENTi Special Called Ifeeting, Pulaski County Board of Education (continued) Dr. Zoldessy then made a motion to present the Metroplan-4 proposal to Judge Wright. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1. Voting were Dr. Zoldessy, Mr. Williams and Dr. McCrary. Mr. Broughton cast the no vote. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Vaught to prepare the necessary documents to present to Judge Wright. Mr. McKenzie said metroplan would draw up a packet of their proposal-4 to present to Judge Wright. As soon as Mr. Vaught gets the material from Metroplan, he and Mr. Bailey will meet to go over the presentation material. Mr. Bailey reminded the Board to review their Code of Ethics form, which were in their folders, and sign them, if approved, and submit to Ms. Crownover. She will notarize them and file them with the Pulaski County Clerk after January 1, 1993, and before January 31, 1993. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Zoldessy so moved, seconded by Mr. Broughton. It was voted and approved and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary Date January 5, 1993 INDEX NOTATIONS ietroplan-4 notion aasses Code of Ethics. JAN-,7-93 THU 14:35 PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P.Ol * { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS !/ WESTERN DIVISION FILED H. Ow-ur InT\nau I.TTiI.?: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT : i! O', JAN ! 3 : L H. bUL-N i o, CI. lPi'K PLAINTIFF V NO.\nLR-C-82-866 PUI.ASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al. I S' DEFENDANT,S MI^S. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOl^S KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS KJLASKI._CQUNTY board of EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR KL'MCTION.. ZONES__TN THE ijlTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST'RTCT The Pulaski County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607\n1. The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to \"determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the 'one man - one vote' principle. and if they are [to] I\nrezone the Little Rock School District accordingly.\" 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zone vary from 0.59' Ct to 3.G4% from the ideal. WHjKREFORE , the Pulaski County Board of Education has compliedJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this case. Respectfully Submitted,  S-L larry d? I VAUGHU PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 72201 Arkansa\nBar No. 79129 SBRJTFICATE of srrviqe copy of the f^regoi^ng ^d^ocumeirt hT\u0026lt;-^be^^ correct to Mr. Christopher Viler Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol Lit?? 2000 First MMrr.. John Walker, .ioi-m w XrT ^pitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and AR John walker, oJnO HthHiWa. .W.AAL_K_E_R__ _dpa ya ' 1771 Rock, 72206 on thiis P.A. Larry o. Vauglit Analysis of Little Rock School Board Election Zdhel Pulaski County Board of Education METKOFLAN January 1993METROPLAN. A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS January 5, 1993 Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Pulaski County Board of Education Room 300, Pulaski County Administration Bldg. 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bailey: At the request of Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, Metroplan has assisted the Pulaski County Board of Education in analyzing the election districts of the Little Rock School Board. Enclosed is our final report. The current election districts were analyzed and six of the seven were foimd to be out of compliance with the \"one man, one vote\" standard of plus or minus five percent from the mean. The current districts are mapped over a base of election precincts and a summary table is provided herein. In addition, we have included two maps of the alternative alignment the Board selected, as well as a summary table for that alternative. The first map is over a street base and the second map is over the voting precinct base. Both maps show the proposed zones in color and the existing boundaries with a heavy black line so that it is easy to identify the changes. It has been a pleasure working with the Board and with your very competent staff. If Metroplan may be of further assistance in this matter, pleasure feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, im Ix^utive Director McKenzie Heritage West Building  201 East Markham  Suite 450  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 372-3300 Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 20,901 Population Variance -3,910 Percent Variance -15.76% Total White Population 3,194 Total Black Population 17,629 Percent Black Pop. 84.35% Total Other Population 78 Percent Other Pop. 0.37% 20/15 24,989 31,057 30,810 22,382 23,120 173,674 24811 -4,396 -17.72% 4,906 15,306 74.97% 203 0.99% 178 6,246 5,999 -2/29 -1,691 0.72% 22,107 2,529 10.12% 353 1.41% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 28,967 22,974 15,582 15,159 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,550 7,346 6,390 7,688 58/38 I -  4.99% 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.65% 540 490 410 273 2,347 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35%Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 25,533 Population Variance 722 Percent Variance 2.91% 25,764 24,578 24,216 24/56 24,663 24/64 173,674 24,811 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 3.84% -0,94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% Total White Total Black Percent Total Other Percent Population 5,018 Population 20,380 Black Pop. 79.82% Population 135 Other Pop. 0.53% 10,084 15,300 59.39% 380 1.47% 23,161 22,518 19,325 15,550 17,233 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,112 1,239 4,681 8,767 6,959 58/38 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% 305 459 450 346 272 2,347 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35%JAN- 7-93 THU 14:35 - PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO, 5013776009 P. 01 U' S' i ^1? I R ' is L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i-xyir.-\u0026lt;i?i s\n'.'.: 4!- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS WESTERN DIVISION\nau I ': j I i,.TTrr.,e rock school district CAi-ft n.E\u0026gt;nLi\\ M I 3, Ci..L-F(|( PLAlNTlFF NO.\nLR-C-82-8b6 OCP.Ci\n-: 7K PUJASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 1., et al. I I DEFENDANT,S MRS. LORENE JOSilL'A, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS I'-HI^^..CQyiflY . BOARD OF EilUCATION 'S PI,AN FOR I'.MCT.1.ON.. ZONEg_JW THE I,ITTLE_ ROCK SCllOQT. DISl'RTCT The Pulasxi County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the J Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. 1. Code Ann. 6-13-607: The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to H determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the ' one man one vote' principle. and if they are [to] rezone che Little Rock School District accordingly. H 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zones vary from 0.59% to 3.84% from the ideal. WHEREJORE, the Pulaski County Board of Education has complin 1 I IJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this Case. Respectfully Submitted, ) LAK ay D. VAUGHuT PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 Suite 400 72201 Arkansas Bar No. 79129 QERTXFIQATE QF_SERVice I, Larry D, Vaught, dvj iierer copyjjf the foregoing document ha\ntt . Christopher Heller, do hereby certify that to Mr. Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Mr. John Walker, JOHN W. WALKER P A AR 72206 on thi.s day of Janua , - a true and correct been served by regular U.S Friday, eldredge \u0026amp; clark, Rock, AR ma i 1 2000 First 72201 and  ^^23 Broadway, Little Rock, day of January, 1993, Larry DD. Valuigghhtt P. 03 AUTOMATIC COVER SHEET DATE\nJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 TO\nFAX It\n93710100 FROM I I PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX #\n5013776009 03 PAGES WERE SENT (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) B* X X )K i * :tt [ * * DATE START SENDER JAN- 1 14:31 5013776009 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TIME PAGES TYPE P.Ol JAN- 7-93 THU 14:33 NOTE 1'36\" 3 RECEIVE OK X X % )K X )K XiSsi J Submitted: January 10, 1995 Before RICHARD S. Filed: June 5, 1995 ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case. African- American voters^ appeal the District Court's^ order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  2, as amended. 42 U.S.C.  1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School, both cases. 1994 , order We affirm in I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and initially. three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. _______ Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. Little 1, No. 93-3592 (Sth Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). Diane Davis, ^Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. ................... We shall refer to these parties as \"Charles.\" The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o\\^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:, i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT _ 1TE?.?J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EB 1 2 1993 .ENTS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 24, 1992, the Court ordered the Pulaski County Board of Education to determine whether the election zones in the Little Rock School District were out of compliance with the principle of II one man one vote\" and to redraw the zones if A 0^ necessary to comply with that principle. On January 6, 1993, the Pulaski County Board of Education, after determining that the zones were out of compliance. filed a plan for election zones in the Little Rock School District. Should any party have objections to the plan. those objections, along with citations of authority, must be filed no later than February 26, 1993. Any responses to objections must be filed no later than March 18, 1993. Should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary in this matter, it will be held Monday, March 29, 1993. SO ORDERED this /day of February, 1993. I I* ti jN r o T SHEET IN HD/OR ^(s) FRCP r.: JUDGE 1 FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McjfiiiOf'fHJ OHtoa of Desegfeeal'O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. W. Walker I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J' ^^hW^ LG. WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURN EITE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Alsu admittol In Practice in (.eorKia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 February 19, 1993 Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find a received FEB 2 2 1993 Of?ico of Desegregation MonitOiHig copy of Plaintiff's Opposition to Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion for Approval of Election Zones which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All counsel of Record Linda Meiissa Poiiy Margie Return to: 5* FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C!!iC3 Ct CeseG^scar-cn ilV* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KlIIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. n W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 JoS hn W. LO. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou^^^i?A(d'?s^c^^ EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3y:. h. 6 7953 tJn.JPLAINTIFF ' \u0026lt;j Z I ~ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. mar 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Ottice of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE COURT'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 (THE ORDER WAS APPARENTLY ENTERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993) The Court has entered an Order which was entered on the docket February 16, 1993, requiring the parties to list any objections which they may have to the submission filed on January 6, 1993 by the defendant Pulaski County Board of Education. The plaintiffs submit the following objections to the plan. 1. The plan does establish seven districts of legally acceptable size. In that respect, plaintiffs have prevailed in causing the defendants to adapt and otherwise redraw the school election zones. 2. The January 6, 1993 submission does not address the voting rights issues raised by the lawsuit. 3. On information and belief, the County Board of Education acknowledged that it would redraw a different plan had it not felt limited by the Court's Order simply to redraw the lines in accordance with the \"one man-one vote\" principle. The County Board has failed to provide the Court with sufficient basis for a determining the voting rights issues.4 . The County Board of Education was divided along racial lines on the propriety of submitting an alternative which addressed the voting rights issues. 5. The only plan which addressed the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue was those developed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted herewith as Exhibit \"A. II 6. The plan submitted by the County Board of Education does not take into account the concept of \"packing, II nor demographic changes which have reduced the percentage of white population in the school' district in the last decade, nor the fact that African American citizens do not have in this racially polarized community an opportunity to elect sufficient number of representives of a their choice. 7. The Pulaski County School District, which has a much lower African-American population ratio than the Little Rock School District, has a plan which provides for two majority-minority districts each approximately 57% minority. North Little Rock is likewise situated and as a result of a voting rights action before this Court, three of the seven board members'therein are of the minority race. Little Rock, as plaintiff in the case against the County, et al., (and is still a plaintiff in part of this action) can surely provide and seek no less minority representation than the Pulaski County Board of Education, which was the defendant that Little Rock sued for, among other things, the right of broader minority representation on the school board. The authority of the voting rights relief is the Voting Rights Act itself, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (j) as amended, Thornburgh v. 8.Jingles, 478 US 30 (1986)\nHarvell v. Ladd, 958 F2d 226\nWilliains V, City of Texarkana, FSupp , USDC, W.D. of Ark, decided February 19, 1993\nSmith v. Clinton, 687 FSupp 1310 (ED Ark 1988), Aff'd 488 US 988 (1988) . These cases are but few in a litany which require full relief for minority citizens in voting rights cases. The Court has not ruled upon the Motions to Dismiss herein. WHEREFORE, objections considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that: 1. The Court overrule the Motions to Dismiss\nThe Court require the defendants to answer the Complaint herein\nThe Court require the defendants to develop appropriate plans which address the voting rights issues raised by plaintiffs or. in the alternative, show cause v/hy the plans submitted by the plaintiffs are inapposite to relieve the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue raised by the plaintiffs\nRespectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJe Rock, AR 72206 By: (50, ^4-3758 y ihn^W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 9. 2. 3. fCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel. ,ay of February, 1993.-2 6 n ) 7 3 4 1 VV poa .'S_7LlO I ?3CZO ^133 G 'l^07(7 I 3 L(2 3 O i^3^o I 8o~J /29 2 I27\u0026lt;^ z. B 7, ^4, 7 6 I -.1 2 0 So 'S-~! iSZ^l Z(,.O 3s43S 33,6 P' Z V ! 313 788 3 4 \"? 4\u0026lt; 4^3 3S\u0026amp; 23 47 z4'Z'5g\u0026gt; i-7 ,-3. -0.^. -'?.3 Z. X Z .^C' * '^. - 3 Z3e3^ - 3.? Z\u0026amp;Z^zr +3'.? I -7 34 7.4- sREU 1 W95 OUtoe oi DesegfeS^**'^'^  filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^STErnSCT^^^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;'hkansas mar 2 9 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARLh. twitwrb, CLERK By:------------------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The motions to dismiss filed by the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education in the matter of the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are denied. The Court hereby orders the defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint by Friday, April 2, 1993. DATED this 29th day of March, 1993. united states district jui JUDGEFILED US. 0131- i\u0026gt;'. iiiuar EASTERN OTSt,-CT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 2 1993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL a. CLERK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. CE?. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength, and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. 2. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended, are adversely affected by the present and proposed plan for electing school board members. The adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which aresufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date], 3. The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote.\" 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. \"that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court. It The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit. 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7, 1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33% His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect. for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. 19. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The II ideal II zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote. It They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2). Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens, approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.s. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form, content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey a Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments, and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words, the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9% were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 . The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34 . There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent ('M) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates. PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 See to . 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic), the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record, Little Rock has a long history of electing two African American persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28 of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case. no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. 42. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but, by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears. however. to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this purpose by statute. (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 1544. The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants. the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges a greater voice in governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts - now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the \"packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to (the percentage opportunity to ensure elect blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rybicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs. does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand. has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval, or otherwise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs' plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5 o figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs'. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53 . It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within forty- five (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will serve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 3 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CTU^NON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS I. TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have challenged the redistricting plan for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), claiming it violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court ordered the Pulaski County Board ofEducation to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement when judged by 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme. Plaintiff's allegations that the old plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot. Growe V, Emison. 61 U.S.L.W. 4163, 4167 (February 23, 1993). In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting scheme violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that they will have less opportunity under the plan just adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). In order to prevail on their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden with regard to both their  2 and constitutional claims. The relief sought must be denied. 2II, DUTY OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Before discussing whether the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE violates the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that the PCBE was not required by the Act to create the maximum number of majority-minority districts. The Voting Rights Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The court in Turner explained\nCongress did not intend to provide minority voters with 'maximum feasible minority voting strength.' Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O'Conner, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is fl you shall not harm\" rather than II you shall help.\" Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 241 (E.D.Ark. 1989)(Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Consequently, the contention in Plaintiffs' complaint that the Voting Rights Act required the County Board to create another majority-minority district should be rejected. This Court may not substitute its judgement for that of the County Board. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Growe. 61 U.S.L.W. at 4167-68\nsee also 3Voinovich v. Quilter. 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (March 2, 1993). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, \"the federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit.\" Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. Finally, this Court should recognize as a legitimate consideration the County Board's attempt to maintain to the extent possible the prior boundary lines of the districts. See. 6^3,., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury. 635 F.2d 1151, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981). A new districting plan which tracks as closely as possible the prior plan decreases voter confusion and apathy. Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 146 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985). Preservation of existing boundary lines is a legitimate goal of the County Board. The plan approved in Turner was based upon an express preference for II a plan which departs as little as possible\" from the previous court-approved plan. Turner. 784 F. Supp. at 556. III. VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to enfranchise blacks in the south by tearing down obstacles to 4registration and voting. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 227 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1992). Subsection (b) of the Act describes how a violation of the proscription contained in subsection (a) is established: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis in original). In interpreting the language of  2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to prevail on a  2 claim a plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom. supra, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a a 5violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or\" for the word \"and.\" Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner. 784 F.Supp at 574 n. 20. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether plaintiff will \"less opportunity\" to participate: \"Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immedicately before the impostion or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The Senate has identified a number of factors which II may\" * * * be relevant to a  2 claim: 1. 4. The history of voting related discrimination in the State or political subdivision\n2 . The extent to which voting in the elections in the State or political subdivision is racially polarized\n3 . The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance to opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting\nThe exclusion of members of the minority group from the candidate slating process\n65. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n6. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns\nand. 7. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). In addition, the Senate Report notes that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous may have probative value. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate, in enumerating these factors, recognized that they may not be relevant in all  2 cases. Id. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining whether a violation of  2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged run-off provision makes the political processes not \"equally open to participation\" by blacks in that blacks have \"less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.\" It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the 7Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. ' truth is that focusing on some of those The factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. 686 F.Supp. at 1387. See also, Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 232. Likewise, in the case at hand, an evaluation of the Senate Report factors adds little to the inquiry of whether, under the new districting scheme adopted by the County Board for the LRSD Board of Directors, Plaintiff's have \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.\" 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992). Consequently, an extensive discussion of each factor is not justified. Factors will be discussed where relevant to the issue being analyzed. A. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. The first question in analyzing a  2 claim is whether the challenged standard, practice or procedure results in the plaintiff having \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs must prove that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board results in their having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the prior districting plan. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1375. In this regard. Plaintiffs may look to Senate Report factor 8number five concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384. See al^, Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by Blacks.\"). This argument is based on the assumption that the young, poor and uneducated do not participate in the political process in the same proportions as the old, rich and educated. Plaintiffs may argue that the minority group has the former characteristics in greater proportion than the majority group. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1385. Even so, consideration of the residual effects of past discrimination provides no insight into the issue of whether the districting scheme adopted by the County Board provides the Plaintiffs less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan. Regardless of where the district lines are drawn, the Plaintiffs will have the same socioeconomic status. If the lines were drawn as the Plaintiffs request, would their opportunity \"to participate\" be any 9different? Clearly not. It is not the line drawing by the County Board which \"results\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity\nrather, it is the diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238. Therefore, because Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the County Board, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. B. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which Plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the County Board than under the former districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three 11 necessary preconditions\" for a districting scheme to impair minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, is not, as would be the case in a If it substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citations omitted]. Third, the minority 10must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates the submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will be discussed in turn. 1. Geographically Compact. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs must be more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the Court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with additional 5% to offset the fact that an minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in order to create a \"safe\" minority district, the district must have at least 65% minority population. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs are arguing that three majority black districts should be created. However, as the 11Plaintiffs own proposal reveals, three \"safe\" majority black districts cannot be created. Plaintiffs may argue that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white \"crossover\" votes, but this argument by Plaintiffs only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer racially polarized voting, another \"necessary precondition\". Hence, either way, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. 2 . Politically Cohesive. To establish political cohesiveness. Plaintiffs must come forward with proof with regard to the voting patterns in each individual district. The Supreme Court warned in Ginqles that \"courts must not rely on data aggregated from all the challenged districts in concluding that racially polarized voting exists in each district.\" Ginales, 478 U.S. at 59. Even the Senate factor on racially polarized voting directs the inquiry to voting behavior of the particular \"State or political subdivision\" at issue. See Senate Report Factor No. 2, supra. In addition, Plaintiffs should be reguired to show that districting plan adopted by the County Board is drawn in such a way that it has resulted in the packing or fragmenting of prior existing cohesive black groups. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 196. If the plan adopted by the PCBE in no way decreases or curtails the effectiveness of black participation by packing or fragmenting prior existing cohesive black groups, the PCBE's plan does not \"result\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity to elect 12representatives of their choice. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act. 3. White Bloc Voting. In general, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Gingles. 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful contemplation of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable v. Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Ark 1980). This Court should take judicial notice of the findings of fact in Leadership Roundtable. In the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's evidence of white bloc voting, the Court should consider evidence that factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether \"bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (0,Conner, J., Concurring). It also \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections.\" Id. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success (i.e., the candidates' platforms and policies. their ability as speakers, their \"track records\" in the community, their name recognition, and their financial support. 13etc.) were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). 4. Vote Dilution. If the Court should find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the \"necessary preconditions\" discussed above, the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving that under the districting plan adopted by the County Board they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting scheme. Plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts could have, and therefore should have, been created by the County Board. In the terminology of  2, Plaintiffs claim vote dilution due to \"packing\", i.e. blacks were packed into two districts with overwhelming black majorities preventing a third majority black district. However, a comparison of the districting plan adopted by the County Board with the prior plan reveals that more \"packing\" existed under the prior plan.' Moreover, the prior plan, when adopted by Judge Woods and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had greater \"packing\" than the plan adopted by the County Board. In fact, if Plaintiffs' concern is \"packing\". 'Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82\" ' ----------* * '   Q, and 59.39% black population. ^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Judge Woods' finding that his plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights 141 they are better off under the plan adopted by the County Board than they have ever been since the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected by single-member districts. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any vote dilution resulting from the districting scheme adopted by the County Board, and consequently. they will be unable to show they have less opportunity under the County Board districting plan to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting plan. C. Conclusion. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove either element of a Voting Rights Act claim. The PCBE plan does not result in less opportunity to participate in the political process based on the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination because these socioeconomic factors are present regardless of where the district lines are drawn. Plaintiffs cannot establish the \"necessary preconditions\" in order to show less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Moreover, even if they could make such a showing, the Plaintiffs claim fails because the districting scheme adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the prior plan currently has and than the prior plan had when it was adopted by Judge Woods in 1986 and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. For all the above reasons, the relief sought by Plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act should be denied. Act was not appealed, and remains the law of the case. 15IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS In order to establish that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must prove that the plan was adopted with the purposeful intent by the members of the County Board to discriminate against Plaintiffs. City of Mobile V. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). It is impossible to speculate what evidence of discriminatory intent Plaintiffs will bring forward because none exists. It will suffice to say that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any constitutional violations. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Pendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 16 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Trial Brief has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same on this 12th day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) 17 u. jLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 J 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action. which is part of the a. SRENTS, CLERK ---- OHP. Cli PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS continuing case concerning the desegregation of the school districts of Pulaski County, Arkansas, plaintiffs challenge the existing zones used to elect members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as well as the new zones adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1992), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the present plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and dilutes minority voting strength, and that the new plan packs the black voting age population into two zones even though blacks are numerically large and geographically compact to constitute a third majority black zone. This case was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, 1993. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The named plaintiffs, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier (\"Charles plaintiffs\"), are black adult residents of the Little Rock School District. The Charles plaintiffs' amended complaint has been consolidated with Case No. LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. The Charles plaintiffs bring this action 2. to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school elections for the purpose of electing school directors. also an action to ensure that This is such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district refomned into single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows of African American descent the seven (7) citizens opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representation of their choice. Defendants are the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the members of the Board of Directors of the LRSD, the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), and the members of the PCBE. 3. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991), the PCBE has the responsibility to divide school districts which have an average daily attendance in excess of 24,000 students into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors. 4. The present LRSD election zones were established by order of the court on December 18, 1986, after certain areas of the Pulaski County Special School District were annexed to the LRSD. Followingthe annexation, the LRSD presented a proposal for zone elections to Judge Henry Woods. That proposal was the subject of a December 9, 1986 pretrial conference. LRSD Exhibit 1. On December 10, 1986, the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the zone proposal. Charles Exhibit 36. The zones adopted in 1986 had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 Census data: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 black. In adopting the above zones in 1986, the court found that the \"seven (7) contiguous zones with comparable populations comports with the one-man one-vote principle required by the constitution\" and that \"the Little Rock School District's redistricting plans are in compliance with the mandate of 2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C. 1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" See document 719\nCharles Exhibit 13. 5. After the filing of this complaint, all the parties agreed that the 1986 plan was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote principle when judged by the 1990 census figures. The Court postponed the September 1992 school board elections and directed the PCBE to determine whether the zones were out of compliance with -3-the one-man one-vote principle and to redraw the lines if necessary.' 6. The PCBE, through the Pulaski County judge, commissioned the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (\"Metroplan\") , a governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area, to address the issue and to devise a remedial plan if necessary. The PCBE instructed Metroplan to examine the one-man one-vote issue and draw three or four alternate plans, keeping the zones compact and contiguous and as close to the present zones as possible in order to support stability in the LRSD. 7. The PCBE determined that the 1986 plan should be used as the starting point for any new plan. It did not instruct Metroplan on the voting rights issue because it understood that the 1986 plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 8. Mr. Jim McKenzie, executive director of Metroplan, contacted Mr. James R. Lynch, a senior research specialist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Arkansas Institute of Government, and requested additional criteria that should be considered in rezoning cases. Mr. Lynch provided him with a two-page summary which Mr. McKenzie used in developing the alternative plans presented to the PCBE. The factors listed by Mr. Lynch were: adherence to the one- man onevote doctrine\navoidance of diluting minority political expression\ncompact and contiguous districts\nrecognizable district 'The Court also postponed the PCBE Zone 5 election. -4-boundaries\nand use of existing political boundaries. Charles Exhibit 24. 9. The Metroplan staff drafted four proposed zoning plans and Mr. McKenzie reviewed the plans to see if they met Mr. Lynch's criteria. Mr. McKenzie presented the proposals to the PCBE at a public meeting on November 6, 1992. The PCBE then held two public hearings on November 30, 1992 and December 7, 1992 to answer questions about the plan revisions. Charles Exhibits 9 and 10. 10. During the public hearings, the issue of a third majority black district was raised. Mr. John W. Nagel, Jr. presented a plan he had drawn up for the Charles plaintiffs which included three majority black districts. Mr. McKenzie testified that Metroplan could have drawn a plan with three majority black zones but the criteria of compactness and minimum change in present zones would have been sacrificed. 11. On December 29, 1992, at a specially called meeting, the PCBE selected Metroplan's Proposal No. 4 as its plan for bringing the present zones into compliance. The vote was three to one, with the three white members voting for Proposal No. 4 and the one black member voting against it. Charles Exhibit 12. 12. Mr. McKenzie testified that Proposal No. 4 looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals. In Proposal No. 4, the areas of the City of Little Rock ^The Charles plaintiffs argue that the PCBE did not legally adopt Metroplans Proposal No. 4 but merely voted to submit it to the Court, thereby abandoning its duty to adopt a plan. The Court Ends that the PCBE adopted Proposal No. 4 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. -5-that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have positive variance. a 13. On February 16, 1993, the PCBE submitted its approved plan to the Court, and the Charles plaintiffs filed objections to the plan. 14. There was no racially discriminatory motive. intent. or purpose involved in the adoption by the PCBE of the districting plan at issue in this case. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence from which this Court can conclude that the plan adopted by the PCBE was the result of purposeful racial discrimination. The PCBE adopted its plan after two public hearings at which the merits of the various plans before the PCBE were discussed. The plan eventually adopted by the PCBE was drawn according to generally accepted criteria provided by the Charles plaintiffs' expert in this case, Mr, Lynch. 15. The City of Little Rock is approximately 65% white and 34% black. Charles Exhibit 25. The voting age population of the City of Little Rock is approximately 70% white and 29% black. Charles Exhibit 26. coterminous. The City of Little Rock and the LRSD are nearly The significant exceptions are the Granite Mountain area, which is a predominantly black area within the City of Little Rock but not within the LRSD, and Cammack Village, a predominantly white area which is within the LRSD but not within the City of Little Rock. 16. The plan adopted by the PCBE has the following characteristics: -6-Zone 1 - 25,533 total population\n79.82% black\nZone 2 - 25,764 total population\n59.39% black\nZone 3 - 24,578 total population\n4.52% black\nZone 4 - 24,216 total population\n5.12% black\nZone 5 - 24,456 total population\n19.14% black\nZone 6 - 24,663 total population\n35.55% black\nZone 7 - 24,464 total population\n28.45% black. See Attachment A. 17. The plan presented by the Charles plaintiffs has the following characteristics: Zone 1 - 23,704 total population\n64.7% black\nZone 2 - 24,870 total population\n64.0% black\nZone 3 - 24,230 total population\n5.3% black\nZone 4 - 25,380 total population\n5.1% black\nZone 5 - 23,839 total population\n8.7% black\nZone 6 - 25,635 total population\n61.7% black\nZone 7 - 26,016 total population\n25.8% black. See Attachment B. 18. The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous. 19. There are no significant barriers to participation in the political process in the LRSD. In order to run for the LRSD Board The Court notes that the plan filed as Plaintiffs Exhibit A with the Charles plaintiffs \"Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court s Order of February 16, 1993,\" (doc. #1762) has the same boundary lines as Attachment B but some of the zones are numbered differently. (See Attachment C.) -7-of Directors, a candidate is required to gather twenty signatures on a petition. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-111 (Michie 1991) . There is no filing fee. There was no testimony that there exist any legal barriers to participation in the political process by black candidates. 20. No evidence was presented to show that black citizens have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch, expert witness for the Charles plaintiffs, testified that the opportunity for black citizens to participate in the political process is the same under the present plan and the plan adopted by the PCBE. 21. Black citizens do not have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch testified that the opportunity for black citizens to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the plan adopted by the PCBE and the present plan. 22. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court referred to factors listed in the Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1982 amendments to 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being relevant to a 2 claim. The Court makes the following findings in accordance with those factors: A. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process. -8-While the Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of a history of official discrimination, the Court will take judicial notice that there has been a history of official discrimination in voting. Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 210 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than demographic information which shows socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, that the history of official discrimination in Arkansas has resulted in black citizens having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the plan proposed by the PCBE. This demographic evidence does not prove or disprove that the district lines drawn in 1986 or 1992 resulted in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The history of official discrimination is remote in time to the preparation of the PCBE plan and will therefore be given little weight. B. The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized. The evidence presented by the Charles plaintiffs tends to indicate that black voters constitute a politically cohesive unit. Mr. Lynch showed that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates. He presented evidence of a correlation between black voting age population and the percentage of votes received by black candidates. The Charles plaintiffs failed to prove that white bloc voting normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus -9-any white cross-over vote for black candidates. The evidence was insufficient to show that white voters tend to group together to defeat black candidates. The evidence indicates that black candidates have achieved considerable success against white candidates. Charles Exhibits 32 and 33 show ten elections (nine at large\none zone) since 1986 in which black candidates opposed white candidates. In six of those elections, the black candidate was successful. Only two of the elections involved the LRSD. In both the at-large 1986 LRSD race and the LRSD Zone 2 1989 race, the black candidate defeated the white candidate. In the 1988 race for municipal judgeship in the City of Little Rock, the black candidate was successful. The black candidates were also a successful in three of the seven at-large elections for a position on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Charles Exhibit 35 shows the results of twenty-five elections between 1962 and 1992 in which black candidates sought positions on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. The black candidates were successful in ten of those elections. The Court finds that there does not exist in Little Rock a sufficient white bloc vote to usually defeat the candidate preferred by minority voters. Although there was some evidence that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate, the Court finds that legally significant racially polarized voting does not exist in the City of Little Rock or the LRSD. -10-C. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. There is no evidence that the LRSD has adopted any practice or procedure that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. The State of Arkansas has adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to school district elections. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (Michie 1991). There is no evidence that the majority vote requirement has had any impact on the success or failure of any black candidate in a school district election. D. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process. The process of slating plays no part in races for the LRSD Board of Directors. Nominations are not made by committee or convention. Anyone who wants to run simply files as an individual in the election. There is no filing fee. A petition signed by twenty qualified registered voters is sufficient to get a candidate on the ballot. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mr. Thomas Broughton, both of whom are black and have been elected to the LRSD Board of Directors, testified that there are no impediments to ballot access. Mr. Lynch testified that the \"white power structure\" throws its support to certain candidates. This does not constitute slating as that term has been used by the courts in considering the Senate factors. See, e.g. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 212. -11-E. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Census data, which indicates that in the City of Little Rock blacks are poorer, less educated, have fewer vehicles, and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population, convinces the Court that minorities in the Little Rock area have suffered the disadvantages of past discrimination. Charles Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. These socio-economic factors have an impact upon the ability of blacks to participate effectively in the political process. For example, while blacks comprise 34% of the population of Little Rock, they comprise only 29% of the voting age population. Mr. Lynch testified that blacks also suffer lower voter registration and lower voter turnout among registered voters than whites. F. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of overt or subtle racial appeals in LRSD election campaigns. Mr. Bill Hamilton testified that in 1973 he actively supported a white school board candidate, Lucy Abraham, and that in 1983 he received wide support from the white community. G. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. The Charles plaintiffs presented evidence of only two LRSD elections. Black candidates won them both. They presented evidence on one election for the position of municipal judge, and -12-that race was won by a black. As noted above under subparagraph B, the plaintiffs presented evidence of twenty-five elections for the position of Little Rock City Board of Directors from 1962 to 1992 in which black candidates participated. Black candidates won ten of the twenty-five races in which one or more blacks participated. Charles Exhibit 35. LRSD Exhibit 2 shows that in 1983 two black candidates ran at-large races for positions on the LRSD Board of Directors, each opposing a white candidate. Black candidates Bill Hamilton and Katherine Mitchell received 70% and 34% of the vote, respectively. According to LRSD Exhibit 5, Mr. Hamilton received 82% of the vote against white candidate Frederick Lee in the 1989 LRSD Zone 2 election. LRSD Exhibit 4 shows that white candidate Charles Young defeated black candidate Lawrence Hampton in the 1987 Zone 6 race by a slim margin, 250 to 218 votes. Zone 6 was then a 72% white zone. The percentage of black representation for at least the last ten years on both the LRSD Board of Directors and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has been 28.5% compared with a citywide black population of 34% and a black voting age population of 28%. Mr. Hamilton testified that it only takes about 300 votes to win an election within the present LRSD election zones. His testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5. The minimum black population in an election zone in the plan adopted by the PCBE is 1,112. PCBE Exhibit 1, p. 2. The five most heavily black zones range from 4,681 to 20,380 black population. There exists in at -13-least five of the zones adopted by the PCBE, if not all of them, sufficient black population from which to draw the number of votes usually necessary to elect a black candidate to the LRSD Board of Directors. H. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group. Mr. Dale Charles, president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, testified that he had raised several issues at LRSD board meetings and had received no written response from the Board. However, there was no testimony that the Board usually provides a written response or that whites who presented issues to the Board received written responses. Mr. Charles admitted that he had never sought to discuss any LRSD issue with his zone representative, who is white. because he assumed his representative would be a antagonistic to him. Mr. Charles further testified that he had made presentations to the Board on several occasions. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton testified generally that the Board was not as responsive as it could be to some issues of concern to the black community, but that any two members of the Board could call a public meeting to discuss any issue of concern to those two members. Board member Patricia Gee testified that she lives in a racially mixed neighborhood (her zone is presently 28.55% black) and that she works as hard to resolve issues brought to her by black constituents as she does to resolve issues brought to her by white constituents. -14-I. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of prerequisite to voting, procedure is tenuous. such or voting standard. qualification, practice or The Court finds that the adoption by the PCBE of the election zones prepared by Metroplan is not a practice that can be described as \"tenuous.\" The starting point for the development of the plan adopted by the PCBE was a plan adopted by the court in 1986 which the court found to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Charles plaintiffs claim the 1986 redistricting plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. They also challenge the redistricting plan for the LRSD Board of Directors adopted by the PCBE, claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This Court ordered the PCBE to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan into compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement when judged by the 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme, the plaintiffs' allegations that -15-the 1986 plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot/ See Grove v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). 2. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PCBE. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1157, 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513, 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (1993). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting plan adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. 3 . In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting plan violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must prove that they will have less opportunity under the plan adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner, 784 F. Supp. at 589. In order to prevail on their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs ^The issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude the Charles plaintiffs from challenging the 1986 plan was raised during these proceedings. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue because it determines that challenges to the 1986 plan are arguably moot but, as noted below, the Court will give effect to the 1986 plan as the law of the case. -16- have not met their burden as to either their 2 claim or their constitutional claim. 4. The PCBE is not required by the Voting Rights Act to create the maximum number of majority black districts. The Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. The Turner court explained: Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with the \"maximum feasible minority voting strength.\" Singles, 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S. Ct. at 2789 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is II you shall not harm\" rather than \"you shall help.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 241 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the Voting Rights Act does not require the PCBE to create another majority black district. 5. In Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 2 05, the court discussed vote dilution claims in the single-member district context. It stated: If lines are drawn that limit the number of majorityblack single-member districts, and reasonably compact and contiguous majority-black districts could have been drawn, and if racial cohesiveness in voting is so great that, as a practical matter, black voters' preferences for black candidates are frustrated by this system of apportionment, the outlines of a Section 2 theory are made out. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the particular factual context. including all of the factors that Thornburg^ Smith, and the legislative history of Section 2 say are relevant. -17-6. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as amended in 1982, provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) [of this title], as provided in subsection (b) [of this section]. 7. A violation of subsection (a) of this section is if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members (b) established if. have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is circumstance which may be considered: Provided, one That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. It is clear that in order to prevail on their 2 claim. plaintiffs must prove both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. * * * It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or II for the word \"and. II Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. -18-Chisom, 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 574 n.2O. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff will have \"less opportunity\" to participate: (I Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. 8. As previously noted, the Senate has identified a number of factors which may be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process\n2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivisions is racially polarized\n3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large electi\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"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/1743"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Education- just discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to \"provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future.\" In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for \"readiness,\" the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This \"Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District\" builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001 , the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01 . Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from , but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test-not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to nonblack student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation . Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks' difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on \"the improvement of the academic achievement of African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined-the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on \"findings\" or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. The District's statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level. Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewed-especially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineguality, which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the program's quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each school's results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the  determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 1-28-020120 4 Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writer's ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which \"readiness\" standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plan's design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section Vis a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. \"PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan,\" \"Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01,\" and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the District's 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed from the same research base on early literacy; they differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31 ). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.      Shared reading . Guided reading . Familiar reading . Modeled writing or shared writing . Interactive writing . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan: Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Se_ction 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2. 7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize \"designed to improve ... the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" rather than to \"remediate\" that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools' School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following: Teachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of wellintentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid that \"there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4.\" Therefore, as the child continues to experience \"failure and defeat,\" he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I she states that \"supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years\" (326). She concludes: Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students' self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures frequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. .. . instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01 .) The second section from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of learning-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and grov.1h of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements--the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The third section (5.2 .1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's program. 'A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned . A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cuniculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the District's general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card.     Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance Report in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000 . An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous\"' (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is summary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"readiness to read.\" (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 1-28-020130 14 he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The child's performance is scored by counting the child's representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skillsprimarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of \"readiness\" for success at the next grade level. Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. \"Proficient\" is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading \"levels\" of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define \"proficient\" performance. To gauge which \"level\" is equivalent to how Arkansas defines \"proficiency,\" the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sett ing is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficultv. The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several states and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing \"proficiency levels\" developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that \"On Grade Level\" is defined by a kindergarten student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. The State of Ohio defined \"Success Indicators\" for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy:  At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words.  By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization.  By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as \"substantially deficient.\" Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress-similar to the District's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition of \"proficiency\" that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination, District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term \"Readiness\" to define the desired performance. When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004, then the staff can do some statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, \"the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers' ongoing observations of student progress over time within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from various parts of the United States and Canada participated. (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA .. The findings were that both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct validity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read\" (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instruction-for the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not reliable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks ... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing\" (20). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test. The lower correlation values of the  Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test. Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each child's answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students' performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The staff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teaching-one approach fits all-the opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, AP A, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole from year to year. With the AL Ts, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports cannot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the AL Ts, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring learning-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council, (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the report's recommendations for early learners:       Prekindergarten: Preschool programs .. . should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, \"sight\" recognition of frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge 1-28-020142 26    in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_325","title":"Compliance court filings","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":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/325"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["200 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nC. 1 F!^ JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 FILED U.S. DIS FRICT COURT EASTERN DISIRICI ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES W. McCORfviAGK. CLERK By\n. September 23, 2002 i-OE-COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. LR-C- 82-866 received SEP 2 4 2002 desegregation MOMnOBlMB Dear Judge Wilson: Today we filed a motion for reconsideration. We found several errors in it and wish to correct them. We are hand delivering a substituted Motion for Reconsideration to the Court. The substitute motion does not alter or modify the substance of the motion filed today. It has been hand delivered to Judge Ray, the Little Rock School District counsel, the ODM and other counsel. Sincerely, -\u0026lt;fohn W. Walker f JWW:js Enclosure- Motion for Reconsideration cc: United States District Court Clerk All Counsel of RecordRECEIVED SEP 2 4 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT y. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1,ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL filed eastern^', SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES w. McCormack, CLERK Dtp CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider the following findings of fact and conclusions of law which it has reached. In making this request, Joshua has been time limited because of the exceeding length of the Courts Opinion and the fact that the Court has sought to address issues that were not the subject of the evidentiary presentation for which the Joshua Intervenors had the burden of proof. Joshua notes that the subject of the hearings, as determined by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then presiding Judge of this case, was for Joshua to present the areas of its greatest strength from among the various objections which Joshua had made to the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. The Court did not indicate that she would allow Joshua to present evidence on matters other than those which were the subject of the hearing before the Court. We make this notation because the successor Court Judge, the Honorable William R. Wilson, has faulted Joshua for not presenting evidence beyond the issues on which evidence was taken. Joshua also notes that there was no issue that Joshua assumed the 1burden of proof upon with respect to Joshuas obligations and undertaking with respect to compliance. Joshua had no power to impose any particular compliance upon the school district. Furthermore, Judge Wright made it clear that the agreement between the State of Arkansas with respect to the loan forgiveness of the $20 million dollars which was loaned by the Arkansas Department of Education to the Little Rock School District was not to be the subject of these hearings. Her reasoning was that the matter was premature because all the parties to that agreement were not before the Court, Joshua had not signed off upon it and that it had nothing to do with whether or not Little Rock had substantially complied with meeting the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which the parties agreed upon in January of 1998. The Court has also addressed the issue of the involvement of the ODM with respect to the issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson. The competence of the ODM, quality of the ODM: reports, the budget of the ODM and the relationship between ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Those matters had nothing to do with Joshuas burden of proof in demonstrating that the LRSD had not substantially complied with the obligation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Nor was the issue of overall counsel fees with respect to the duration of the litigation and the payments to lawyers, and the public perception of those fees a matter of evidence to be considered when Judge Wright formulated the issues. The issue of attorneys fees has no relevance to the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations. The Court, Judge Wilson, has recited history regarding his perception of the fee event and made assumptions regarding those matters. In due respect to the Court, the assumptions are not valid and represent a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the 21 role of lawyers in this long standing case. The Joshua Intervenors were not informed at the time that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable William R. Wilson of the Courts negative attitude toward lawyers who were involved with and associated with this case. While Judge Wright may have had such attitudes, they were not expressed and do not form the basis for any judicial ruling. The attitude of the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods was well known. He disapproved of certain payments to certain counsel, i.e., counsel for Joshua and the legion of predecessor and associate counsel who were involved in this case when it was first filed as Aaron V. Cooper in 1956. I The parties are entitled, we submit, to have facts found upon the record which means a record which is developed in open Court. The fee issue is particularly sensitive because the Court has proceeded to make assumptions regarding fees and costs. In doing so, the principal erroneous finding is that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Joshua requests that the Court either delete its references to payments to counsel or afford the issue to be revisited in a manner which establishes the fact and does not further cloud public perception, a point to which the Court appears most sensitive. The Court also seems to disregard the role of Joshua because the Court makes no reference to how Joshua became involved in this case in the first place and why it was necessary for the school district to seek an interdistrict remedy in the first place. Those matters were not before the Court and we submit should be excised from the Courts Opinion. It is important to note that the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods refused to allow the Joshua Intervenors to intervene in the first place. It was His ruling that the Black plaintiffs did not need their own advocate or representative because the Court would protect the interests of the Black J Lchildren. That position was overturned by the Court of Appeals and from that point on, Joshua has been the real plaintiff seeking to validate and protect the Constitutional rights of African American children which the LRSD set out to accomplish through counsel who have since been discharged.^ With those points in the foreground and in context, Joshua respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its lengthy Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002 with respect to issues which were not before the Court or for which the Court may have made mistakes. 1. On page 2, the Court indicates that the Settlement Agreements of 1989 were to be implemented under the supervision of. . . the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe the terminology to be inappropriate because Judge Wright never entered an Order determining the ODM to be the supervisor of any district. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ODM ever performed in that role. 2. As stated preliminarily. Judge Wright required Joshua to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their strongest grounds for challenging the school districts request for release from Court supervision. The Court did not afford LRSD the opportunity to establish its case because the burden of proof rested with the Joshua Intervenors. Accordingly, Joshua requests that any facts that were found beyond the submitted grounds identified as subject areas for evidentiary hearings should be excised. In this respect, there was no burden imposed upon Joshua to demonstrate its own actions or conduct and no party requested that Joshua make such a demonstration. Moreover, the Agreement did not call for such a demonstration. The record will reflect that the District hired Philip Kaplan, P.A. Hollingsworth, Janet Pulliam and their associates to pursue the interdistrict litigation which resulted in the 1989 Settlement Agreement but which Settlement Agreement was reached without those counsel. 43 The Court notes on page 7 the role of Judge Wright with respect to Her supervision of this overall case. The Court omits, however, reference to the fact that the LRSD filed a motion seeking to have Judge Wright recused from the case. Although she reflised to recuse, her withdrawal made the recusal issues moot for purposes of appeal. The Court appears to have adopted LRSDs reasoning set forth in its motion for recusal when it addresses the role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe that is inappropriate, with all deference to the Court, and we believe that it tends to denigrate the significance of Judge Wrights work in seeking to implement through use of the ODM the dictates of the 8\"' Circuit. 4. When the ground rules were set by Judge Wright, she indicated that the Joshua Intervenors should present nonciimulative evidence regarding the areas which Joshua most strongly regarded from the among the many areas to which it objected. Page 7, footnote 12. By ruling that cumulative evidence would be disallowed, the Court narrowed the hearing time and the presentation of evidence. The focus of the Court was upon brevity and substance. The successor Court agreed to follow the procedure set forth by Judge Wright. 5. In footnote 15, page 9, the Court notes that this action was filed on November 30, 1982, but it later gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since that time. Joshua requests that the Court, if it must address the history at all again, acknowledge that Joshua did not participate before the Honorable Henry Woods in the liability phase of the case as it is now styled and it only intervened at the remedy stage in 1987. Although this matter is not the subject of the evidentiary hearings, the Court may make this correction by reference to the docket entries and by reference to the Court of Appeals Decision which allowed Joshua to intervene for purposes of remedy. Joshua further notes that the 1989 Settlement Agreement 5effectively merged the captioned case with, inter alia, Clark v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Clark was the continuation of Aaron v. Cooper. Accordingly, this is a 46 year old case rather than a 20 year old case because the liability rulings of Clark remained and because, despite the beliefs of the late Judge Bill Overton, there was never a determination that the LRSD had achieved unitary status. 6. In footnote 30, page 16, the Court indicates that the claims for relief and remedies differed from those being sought in Oark. Joshua requests that the Court clarify those differences for as Joshua reads Judge Woods later Opinion, Judge Woods, himself, found the school districts to be faulted for both interdistrict and intradistrict violations of the rights of African American children and he determined that consolidation with a resulting desegregation plan for the consolidated district would be necessary. Judge Woods appointment of Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon is not mentioned. Mr, McCutcheon made findings during the remedial process that the districts were continuing to implement their policies by engaging in practices which tended to discriminate against African American school children. We believe that if history is to be written it cannot be fair unless the myriad hearings and other developments before Mr. McCutcheon are placed into perspective Mr. McCutcheon is a necessary connection to legacy of Judge Henry Woods who the Court acknowledges to be the Courts mentor. 7. In footnote 47, pages 26 and 27, the Court makes reference to the evolution of the ODM and its budget. That matter was not before the Court. While Judge Wrights approval of the ODM budget is a matter of public record, we believe the Court may wish to excise these figures because they are inaccurate. Joshua is aware that the ODM budget was never fully spent. Joshua submits that the Court may wish to readdress this issue also because Judge Wright 6approved the budgets and the manner in which Your Honor treats the budget seems to be at least an implicit criticism of Judge Wrights actions and of the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place. We submit that the ODM and its budget are not fair issues for the instant proceedings and that the Courts attitude regarding the merits of plaintiff s objections may be clouded by the belief expressed that too much money has been spent on the professional group. In making the request tor the reconsideration on this point, we note that all of the governmental parties have resisted in one form or another the ODM activities. We also note that the Court may be signaling that it wants to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the 8\" Circuit. There is no evidentiary basis for doing that or for allowing that inference to publicly flow. On many occasions, Judge Wright commended the ODM work as being useful, helpful and even important in helping the districts achieve desegregation goals. 8. On page 38, the Court notes that on December 27, 1996, Judge Wright held that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring. We have searched the record and do not find that she ever lifted that Order. Accordingly, LRSD has not been monitored as contemplated since 1997. Instead, it has been in advisory position to the LRSD. The Court has to also note with reference to the budget of ODM which it set forth on page 27 that monitoring for LRSD when done by the ODM, a 35% cost for LRSD, would have been approximately $250,000 per year. There surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was to take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year, a point the Court refers to at least five times. (Pages 39, 42, 43, 88 and 90). 9. On page 38, the Court heads a discussion the perplexing final resolution of Joshuas 7request for still more attorneys fees from LRSD Joshua requests the Court excise this section for several reasons. First, it indicates a bias or hostility toward Joshua counsel. Second, it implies\nests that the terms of the Settlement were not made collusion between the lawyers. Third, it suggi known to Judge Wright, a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Fourth, it complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties. The Court criticizes an Agreement without evidence about, or without inquiring into, it. The implication that LRSD and Joshua entered into an attorney client relationship suggests professional misconduct on the part of the attorneys. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that for the monthly amount of $4,000+ Joshuas counsel agreed to undertake all the monitoring aspects, including the ODMs role, of LRSDs implementation of the plan. The Court takes issue with Joshua counsels approved 1997 hourly rate of $250. Nonetheless, counsel has been awarded even greater fees than that as was His Honor awarded greater fees while in private practice. Surely, the Court understood that Joshua did more than 16 hours per month in monitoring this case. There is no record to establish this fact, however, and if it is important for public perception or otherwise, Joshua is prepared to demonstrate the hundreds of meetings held with school district officials during the three year period\nnumerous meetings with the ODM\npublic confrontations during monitoring occasions where Joshua counsel were threatened with arrest and where because of the persistence and vigor of Joshuas monitoring, the district revised its policies. We, therefore, believe that it is important for the Court to address the issue by hearing, affording appropriate and reasonable time for developing the issues, or, that the matter be removed from the Courts Opinion because it is based only upon speculation and conjecture. Joshua notes here that the process requires lawyers. For instance, Steve Jones, representing the NLRSD and Sam Jones representing the PCSSD basically 8sat in Court throughout these proceedings and were paid fees and costs while Joshua counsel have not been paid a dime. But the process affords the districts the right of counsel and the districts have had no reluctance in paying their counsel on a contemporaneous basis and they are not held to public or Court contempt for being paid. .In page footnote 58, the Court guesses that all attorneys have been paid at least $8 million dollars. A guess is inappropriate for a Court, we submit, when the facts are more easily ascertainable and the facts establish that the payment for Joshua in 1990 represented payments for 34 years of work and costs during that time. There is no estimate for the amounts which the districts paid their counsel to forestall desegregation before 1990. On the other hand, this issue has already been addressed and we submit has no place in this Opinion because it does not contribute to the issues which the Court heard. Undersigned counsel Walker does not accept the Courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. On the other hand, the three districts have received almost one billion dollars from the State of Arkansas since 1990 because of the various actions undertaken by counsel. Careful inquiry by the Court would disclose that the annual desegregation amounts from the State to the three school districts is in the range of $50 million or more per year. Were this a contingent fee case, plaintiffs counsel would have indeed benefitted. 10. The Court makes reference on page 46 to the achievement disparity goals approved by the Court of Appeals as being unreachable citing the testimony of Drs. Walburg and Armor which was given in 1996. That testimony came after the original Settlement Agreement in 1989 and then preceded the 1998 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, whatever views Walburg, Armor and even Judge Wright had about the elimination of the achievement gap, the parties 9agreed to address it in the manner set forth in the Plan. The Courts comments regarding Walburg and Armor are inapposite to the hearing which the Court held and should play no part in the Courts ruling. 11. On pages 47 and 48, the Court refers to the failure of objection by the ODM and Joshua to the Interim Compliance Report. There is no record basis for this, i.e., no witness testified to this effect and there is no evidence that Joshua was silent at any time. The only evidence is that Joshua was continually involved and seeking to be involved in the devisation of policies and procedures and was continually meeting with district officials regarding compliance issues. See Court Exhibits 553 through 569. 12. On page 48, the Court chastises ODM for its report of disciplinary sanctions which was filed on June 14, 2000. The report was made to Judge Wright before she relinquished her jurisdiction and before the March 15 report seeking release from Court supervision was filed by LRSD. She was aware and there are many cites in the record to reflect that ODM presented its report in such a way as to inform the district of the facts it found and to make recommendations regarding those facts within the context of discussions which followed subsequent to the submissions of the reports. Had Judge Wright found criticism with the ODM reports, we believe the Court was obliged to share those criticisms with the parties prior to LRSD having filed its report seeking relief from Court supervision. See pages 48 through 50. On page 49, the Court acknowledges that the March 15 report of the school district failed to adequately address the disproportionality of African American student discipline. The report is not evidence, as Mr. Chris Heller acknowledged. This failure by itself demonstrates that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection or release at the time the report was made. If the data 10 were not available and were not presented there would be no basis for an objection from Joshua regarding the matter. ODM should not be faulted, nor should Joshua, for failing to object to data which did not exist at the time. 13. On pages 52 through 54, the Court notes that Joshua did not present evidence or arguments that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing. The Court had previously instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence. The Court now states that Joshuas failure to present any of that evidence requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. Joshua finds it incongruent for them not to be allowed to present any evidence on certain matters and upon compliance with a no evidence presentation then receive a finding that they abandoned their position. Surely, the Court will not hold it against Joshua when it did not present evidence that the Court refused to let in in the first place. 14. On page 58, the Court appears to chastise Joshua counsel for never raising a compliance issue under Section 8.2 of the Plan. The Plan did not require Joshua to raise the specific compliance issue in order for them to oppose release from Court supervision. Furthermore, as pointed out above, there was no place in this hearing on the issues as formulated for this issue to be addressed. Furthermore, there is much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. See Court Exhibits 553-569. 15. The Court interprets footnote 2 of the Revised Plan (Opinion page 60) as not being the intention of the parties to have the remediation goal fully achieved within three years. 11Joshuas evidence did not say that it did. For Joshuas evidence was that certain goals were to have been frilly met while others would be ongoing. Surely, the goal of remediation of achievement disparities would be ongoing but elimination of disparities in discipline need not be, for example. The Court makes an assumption regarding the reason for this footnote. There is no basis for the assumption from the record. 16. In footnote 67, page 60, the Court seems to be uncomfortable with the practicality of the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities. Judge Wright also had some discomfort with that goal as previously noted but the achievement goals were agreed to and. contrary to the opinion of the Court, they must be implemented. The question is not whether they should have been agreed to by the LRSD, for they were, but whether they must deliver on those goals or promises. There is a presumption that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. Twelve years after the money began to flow and between one half billion and a billion dollars more spent in this district than which otherwise would have been spent, the achievement disparities remain. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the substantial monies expended were not used for the purpose of remediating achievement disparities between African American and white students The beneficiaries of the monies have primarily been white students who have seen their achievement rise in ways to cause the gap to remain if not increase between and their still less fortunate brethren. 17. Beginning on page 63, the Court makes an analysis regarding the Green factors. We submit that the Green factors do not apply to this Settlement Agreement and that those factors should be excised. The Court takes the position that LRSD went beyond what it was required to do and voluntarily assumed desegregation obligations. We submit that these were 12 not voluntarily entered into, they were the result of negotiation brought about by the strength of the Joshua litigation position They constitute benefits to the class of minority children which were bargained for by their counsel. The district was not doing the children a favor\nrather, it was meeting an obligation which has been unaddressed during the 46 years of this litigation. 18. On page 72, the Court emphasizes that LRSD has never been adjudicated to be a constitutional violator. We ask that the Court reconsider that position if for no other reason than that the settlement did not address fault. The Court discusses Judge Overtons Opinion and makes reference to the appellates decision affirming Judge Overton at 705 F.2d 265. The Court of Appeals approved Judge Overtons Decision because the Plan before the Court represented the school boards attempt to temporarily reorganize attendance patterns while the school board pursued longer ranged plans to ensure an integrated school system citing this case. In other words, had this case not been filed, the Court of Appeals Decision arguably would have been otherwise. On page 74, the Court noted that LRSD operated under the 1990 Settlement Plan for 8 years,  a long time. The Court fails to note that during that long time Judge Wright found considerable disenchantment with the manner of operation and even required the school board members to come to Court to hear the evidence on many occasions. The Court even found the school district to be in contempt during this time. The Court disregards that history and seeks to demonstrate that LRSD has been a model of compliance during the Judge Wright years. That simply is not the case. This Court recognized as much on pages 30-32 of its own Opinion. The Court is requested to explain on the one hand the findings of Judge Wright and on the other hand its compliments of the district for these 8 years. 19. On pages 77 through 85, the Court appears to take issue with the concept that LRSD 13specifically agreed to narrow the achievement gap between African American and other students. This lead the Court to impose an obligation upon Joshua to demonstrate that minority student achievement was a vestige of de jure desegregation. The Court thus imposed a liability concept upon Joshua during the hearing without any notice and without any cause. The Settlement Agreement is a remedy and as such may address issues other than those for which there has been a specific violation. But when the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court it becomes the law of the case and the parties do not have to readdress at each hearing the underlying basis for the remedy being provided. 20. On page 87, the Court makes a finding of fact (No. 3) that Joshua did not pursue the compliance issues by use of the correct procedures before objecting to the report as a whole. As stated before, Joshua was not obliged under the plan to do so. 21. In addressing the findings of fact pages 87 through 160, the Court appears to have adopted the LRSDs proposed findings. While the Court has great discretion, we make the following notations inter alia: a) on page 87, the Court speculates regarding resolution between Joshua and the school districts\nb) the Court speculates that Dr. Lacey would take appropriate action if she perceived any race based treatment despite the absence of any record of her past actions on this issue, page 93\nc) on page 94, the Court found that since 1989, LRSD had a good record of acting in good faith (see paragraph 18 supra)\nd) on page 96, the Court accepted the belief by Dr. Linda Watson that both Joshua 14e) f) g) h) i) J) k) and ODM were provided with copies of a compliance plan and did not require any evidence\non page 96, the Court without any record basis, concluded that Joshua counsel and staff have free access to LRSDs offices and schools and routinely received copies of any requested documents\non page 100, the Court excuses the districts failure in excluding Joshua from planning and other meetings that the district had regarding compliance\non pages 103 through 107, the Court does not address the elimination of disparities as being intended by the Plan\nrather, the Court addresses overall 1 reduction in suspensions where the racial disparities remain\non page 106, the advisory ODM Report is criticized by His Honor with respect to discipline but Judge Wright did not make the same criticism. Had she done so, a duty to address the issue would have been created\non page 109 a suspension index was created without any explanation (see finding 30), i.e. no witness explained it. The Court accepted the calculation by LRSD that there was no diminishing of disparity in discipline between 1997 and 2000\nthe Court on page 1 10 imposed upon Joshua a burden to prove that disproportionality in discipline was a result of racial discrimination. Joshua submits that that is the wrong legal standard to be applied under the law of this case. The issue is relief, not causation\non page 111, the Court disregarded the incidents of discrimination presented in 151) m) n) o) P) discipline. (See footnote 108) In doing so, the Court disregarded the admonition by Judge Wright not to present cumulative evidence regarding any matter and then held that the presented incidents were too isolated to allow judgment regarding the entire school system\non page 112, the Court may wish to reconsider the word probable in finding 38 in discussing the testimony of Dr. Watson. A review of her testimony establishes that environmental factors may be - not probably were the explanation for racial disproportionality\non page 113, the Court notes that Dr. Watson indicates that African American teachers suspended African American students more than white teachers. That appears to be a finding of racial treatment by African American teachers toward African American students. This establishes continuation of systematic discrimination toward African American students as well as perpetuation of disparities\non page 115, at footnotes 111-112, the Court seems to condone disparities in sports activities by noting on page 1 16 that students tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing. That in itself we submit is racial, i.e., whites-golf, tennis, soccer\nblacks - football, basketball and track\non pages 116-117, in addressing the testimony of Ray Gillespie, the Court does not address the inferences to be taken when white coaches publicly mistreat Black athletes nor the reasonable perceptions which are influenced by those actions\non page 118, the Court in finding 9, accepts a means test for participation in 16extra-curricular activities but this flies in face of the reality that most African American children in the LRSD - in contrast to its white students- cannot meet the means tests imposed\nq) with respect to advanced placement courses, the district has increased the enrollment of white students to a point to where the preexisting disparity has been extended. The programs undertaken by the district which are cited by the Court are minuscule. For example (SMART involved a summer number of 200 pupils and Teachers of Color could only involve six teachers per year in being prepared for AP. This program was started in January, 2001, less than two months before the Report herein), r) the Court disregarded the testimony of Jason Mercer who presented multiple incidents of unfair treatment at famed Little Rock Central High School and the Court entirely disregarded the testimony regarding of parent Romona Hortons travails regarding her precocious children who were also enrolled at Little Rock Central High School, s) the Court accepts a means test for participation in the University Studies Program despite the obvious conclusion that it will disqualify the great preponderance (90%) of African American students who attend Hall High School. The Court also concluded that in one instance, LRSD solicited a private donation to pay tuition for an African American student to take a course offered under the University Studies Program. The testimony does not identify that the race of that student. The Court is requested to correct this finding\n17t) with respect to counseling services, finding no. 24, page 133, the Court may wish to revisit this finding because it seems at odds with Ms. Watsons testimony\nu) with respect to academic achievement, the Court notes the obligation of the LRSD to be to approve the academic achievement of African American students. The issue is not simply to improve the achievement of African American students, rather, it is to bring their achievement levels to a range within reasonably proximity of the achievement levels of white and other students\nv) with respect to page 146, finding no. 16, there is no evidence of what Joshua counsel knew. Indeed, the 8\"' Circuit said that the parties should not retreat from the concept of eliminating the achievement gap\nand w) on page 114, finding 18, the Court again speculates regarding the loan provision forgiveness by the State of Arkansas toward LRSD. The Court then goes ahead and gives LRSD two more years in order to comply with the State agreement without there being joinder of, or a hearing upon the issue. The Court faults Joshua for not raising that issue but fails to acknowledge that when it was raised by Joshua, Judge Wright chose not to address it for the reasons set forth on pages 1 and 2, supra. This finding was not made upon any evidence regarding the Joshua objections to LRSDs Motion for Release from Court Supervision. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons for the Court to revisit the record in order to determine whether the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are supported by the evidence presented during the hearings before Judge Wright and His 18Honor. We also note that it is appropriate for the Court to again consider the context of the evidentiary presentations and withdraw its conclusions regarding those areas of compliance that the Court did not allow evidence to be developed regarding'g- Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No Joh^V^Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 IN W. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187(Fax) J Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent L prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this day of F ncfU.S 4,2c S. Mail, postage 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones ' WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 John^. Walker 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 0 1 2002 JAMES W CORMACK, ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * A * *  it * ie ii k * 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. I presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1day of October, 2002. U ED S' ES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE AND'OR CoY.__ 6 8 0OCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN M WALKER PA\" NO.667 p.2 John W. Walker^ P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS October 1,2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY.PJL DONNA J McHENRY 3210 Hendeoison Hoad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone (5OI) 372-342B  Fax (5O1) 372-8428 Email: mcheniyd^wbelLnet Honorable Judge WSliam R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wflson: On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSDs compliance with Section 2.7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being inposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshuas monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSDs attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects of Joshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the feet that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 172 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15,2004. I must also object to Courts imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Courts comments indicate that it does not forsce or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8* Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, fiill-time, the activities of the Little RockOCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.667 p.3 Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1,2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. Sincerely, W. WalkCT JWW\njs cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann MarshallIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter LRSD) for its Response to Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter Joshua) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration in turn. 1. The Courts use of the term supervision on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court supervision. See Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 471 (1992)(The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . . . (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter Revised Plan) was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense.3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSDs position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Courts focus on brevity and substance. In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system. Aaron v. Cooper. 243 F.2d 361, 362 (8* Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. Sec LRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODMs productivity. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuits mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an advisory position to the LRSD since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2Revised Plans transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODMs monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Courts discussion of Joshuas 1996 request for attorneys fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the terms of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshuas counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshuas attempt to justify the monitoring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended hundreds of meetings with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever threatened with arrest, and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels persistence and vigor. The LRSD also denies the implication that counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony of Drs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan  2.7. 11. The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Courts finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSDs Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSDs Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 312. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODMs June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSDs Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the Districts Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing. 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshuas argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4school. As Drs. Walberg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly refened to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of African-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a constitutional violator. The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSDs final report. Sc^c Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in turn: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurruss testimony that he asked Dr. Camine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no record of past actions is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. (c) Joshua points to nothing in the record which would indicate that the Courts characterization is erroneous. 5(d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODMs August 11, 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsels suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to conduct discovery. Joshuas opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Courts finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no failure for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court conectly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (0 The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, e^, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSDs calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. Sec CX 743. (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  62.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Courts admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5. (1) The Courts description of Dr. Watsons testimony is accurate given the context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not a finding of racial mistreatment by African- American teachers toward African-American students. (n) The Courts statement that students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy does not condone racial disparities in activities. (o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (P) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. (q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7so. The LRSDs success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSDs efforts as minuscule. (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to African- American students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watsons testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2.7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSDs March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration\nthat Joshuas Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied\nthat the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys fees expended herein\nand that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^=iOH------- Chrislopher Heller F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\unitary-rcsponse-mot-rcconsidCT wpd 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\iinilary-response-mot-reconsidCTwpd 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1. 2002 LETTER For its response to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") October I, 2002 letter. Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSDs compliance with LRSDs various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshuas monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the Joshua class members and the LRSD.3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Courts September 13,2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives and class counsels obligations to the class members. 4. The Courts September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, s^. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. The LRSD can find in the Courts Order no basis for Joshuas argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Courts Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Courts Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshuas request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Courts Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court.WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshuas letter/motion of October 1,2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 By:' Christopher HellerCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 iristopher HelleiR CEIVED iCT 1 2 201)2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS URT KAN OCT 1 1 2002 \u0026gt;NS, \\S OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION DESEI iREGATION MONITORING JAMES W, By:.- - - - - - - - - ER LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4\n82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On September 24,2002, Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678),' which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (Memorandum Opinion) declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871), except for  2.7.1\nand (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (docket no. 3677). On October 7,2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 'On September 23,2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction-and I will hew to this custom. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).^ After an initial review of Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, 1 considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshuas arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating 1 find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshuas arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, 1 think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly faulted Joshua for failing to present evidence ^Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSDs Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24,2002, and its Response to Joshuas Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSDs eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshuas Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9,2002, Joshuas counsel asked me to strike LRSDs Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshuas counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and 6(e), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSDs Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part of its challenge to LRSDs request for an immediate declaration of unitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ^117 (emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,^ 1 expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I fault Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson ... [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM ... 114 were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSDs compliance 3 It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19,2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. 1 remain puzzled. 4' ODM. For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider the competence of the -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002,1 carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODMs annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the ODMs budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school districts.^ While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODMs rapidly escalating budgets,^ which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional groupthe ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that ^In most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. ^See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Why Joshuas eounsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshuas counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODMs June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshuas counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshuas decision to use that Report, one of the Court's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline. required me to read and carefully analyze that document. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws-they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe 1 would have been remiss if I had not closely scrutinized the ODMs Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO72A (Rev.8/82) findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculationmaking the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for African- American students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, 24-26. Third, Joshuas counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshuas counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement\n $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581)\nand $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys fees-this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a guess that. since 1990, the attorneys fees that LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys fRSDv. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8'\" Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)totals at least $4,000,000. Joshuas counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my guess regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys fees paid to counsel for the three school districtsan estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshuas counsel can make the statement that counsel Walker does not accept the courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been directly benefitted by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys fees in this case. Fourth, Joshuas counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role of lawyers in this long-standing case\n^ i 'negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\n and a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel.' nlO Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshuas counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them.'' For the record, I have no predispositions, negative attitudes, or bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys fees that have been paid to all of the ^Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Motion for Reconsideration at 3. \"Motion for Reconsideration at 7. llu- The Judge must not like me is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the barwhen a lawsuit doesnt turn out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)attorneys in this caseI believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSDs decision to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel had already been paid (docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record'^not speculation or conjectureand also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD and Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys fees and the precise role of Joshuas counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any preconceived ideas or a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the ODMs staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing Judge Wrights actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\n'^ (b) I may be signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\n''* and (c) 1 may be trying to infer that Joshua take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.' ,\u0026gt;15 No one could fairly read the ^^See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 'Motion for Reconsideration at 7. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As 1 repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstanding job of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her.'^ Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCSSD. Finally, Joshuas counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.... There is no such inference or implication. Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that the court previously '^I do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing]. This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9,2002,1 entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how 1 intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSDs request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December 11,2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshuas challenge to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshuas counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSDs alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest groundslack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to African- American achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses\nguidance counseling\nand extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshuas counsel responded: Thats fine, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wrights ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSDs lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities\nand (b) how LRSDs alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshuas three remaining challenges to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24,2002, Joshuas counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshuas counsel to argue that the court instructed them not to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSDs substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again-one last time-the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshuas Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. DATED this day / J of October, 2002. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED JU THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 79(a) FRcV ON 10/Il jo -12- AO72A (Rev.8/82)llECElVEr OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCFGF IltSEGREGATON MOKiTCRiJ\u0026lt;G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION EAST^fSilslfeB^l OCT 1 1 2002 JAMES W, Me By\n_______/  RR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1,2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: (a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the Memorandum Opinion) declaring LRSD to be partially unitary\nand (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order (docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to treat the letter as a motion of some kind. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a supplement to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7,2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshuas October 1,2002 letter (docket no. 3681). Because I see no reason to await LRSDs Response to the matters raised in Joshuas 'A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Order. AO72A (Rev.8/82) 3 6 8 5 ssOctober 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the relief requested by Joshuas counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarity how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that 1 clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshuas letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that Supplement. In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motionsnot lettersraising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshuas counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshuas counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were the best defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8\" Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshuas counsel participated in monitoring ^In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)LRSDs compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.^ After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshuas counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $48,333.33 per year.'* Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshuas counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. In Section VILA., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshuas counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSDs compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1,1 provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshuas counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1,2002 letter as suggesting that Joshuas counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshuas counsel to perform monitoring duties-something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshuas counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to ^Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel were not entitled to receive attorneys fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuits approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing that monitoring work. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO72A (Rev.8/82)continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. 1 hope Joshuas counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plansomething I never expected to hearI believe I must now modify Section Vll.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua way monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and, //they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the process for raising compliance issues set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshuas counsel continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring of LRSDs compliance with that section of the Revised Plan. 1 have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshuas counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSDs implementation of its obligations under  2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, 1 will be available to resolve them. -4- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Second, Joshuas counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified comments in the Memorandum Opinion indicated that [I] do not foresee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required. This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several of its original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts. the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshuas counsels October 9,2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODMmuch less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. If I waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshuas counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. No more paper should -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. Thats my rulin. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. DATED this day of October, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUl/gE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79^) FRCP ON 10 I II [CZ- by -6- AO72A (Rev.8/82)\u0026amp; RECEIVED FILES L C3irvi OOl OCT 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 5 2Q02 JAMESW. W By----------- CLERK  EP CLEF^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S.C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding\n(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it\n(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1-expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy\n(d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) proceeding includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation\nIn reference to 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2), the Court is required to disqualify itself \"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy . . Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2dll3 (8\"' Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District. No. 1.. Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge. The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2-The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002. included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiffs counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings. Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Courts staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations\n775 F.2d 404, 407\nand959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel \\.yy833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplans name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Court of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time\nhowever they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set forth above and any other -J- writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Coun and the parties would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such hearing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His Honors earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2)\n2) the basis for the Courts conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(2)\nand 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. Respectfully submitted. A i / I !(\u0026gt;/ -7^ i- Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405^00 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 John W, Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187 (Fax) \\ Rickey HicksAT^^BarNo. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing h^been sent-i prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this/S^day of ^'and U.S. Mail, postage 2002\nMr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock. Arkansas 72222-7388 // / Jkn W. Walker -5- In re LI'ITLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTHKT, Petitioner. LITl'LE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAI. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee. Nos. 87-2160, 87-23G3. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Decided Nov. 6, 1987. Supplemental Opinion Filed Feb. 9. 1988. Litigation was brought involving election for school board jwsitions. The United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., directed elections for three school board positions and appeal was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district court judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuit Judge, held that: (I) fact that lawyer with whom trial judge once practiced appeared at one time in another case consolidated with pending case did not require district court judges disqualification, and (2) errors of procedure in proceeding did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. Ordered accordingly. 1. Judges =46 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one time for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and later severed from pending case did not warrant disqualification of district court judge\nconsolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeting and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A,  455(a). (b)(2). 1. The Hon. Henry WoikIs, United States District 833 FEUBKAL REPORTER, 2(1 SERIES 113 2. Judges *^=49(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  456(a). (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kaplan. Little Rock, Ark., for Little Hock School Dist. Sam Perroni, Little Rock, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, III., for North Little Rock. Before HEANEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, together with a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of the many important issues presented deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to take place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court? No. 87-2363 is an appeal by LRSD from the District Courts * order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Courts order. It is our understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the election. No. 87-2150 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATION OF WOOD Clle as 633 r.2d 113 (SlliCIr. 1987) declare that Judge Woods should have disqualified himself. In the alternative, it is suggested that we simply direct that anotli- er judge be assigned to this case. In addition to the petition for mandamus, various appeals also include suggestions for the disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic relief is appropriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicxcs curiae in a case called Clark V. Board of Educ. of tke Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-16B. The Ds- trict Court first consolidated Clark witli the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C,  456(b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice ... a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We dis- agree with this argument. Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partner's activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [2] In addition, the parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we du not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part of the able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that We decline to re- are anytJiing but easy. move him from the case. Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re- spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed The petition for writ of mandamus in No. 87-2160 is denied. We direct that our man dates in these two cases issue forthwith It is so ordered. w fo Bkoh1\u0026gt;HW$WH^ In re Application of I.niry A. WOOD to Appear Before the Grand Jury (Mise. 85-L-02). |J4 Appeal of UNITED STATES of America. No. 8C-1719. United Slates Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspiracy defendant, who wt acquitted, brought application to make inc vidual presentation to grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by FBI agent. United States Attorney presented alleg tions to grand jury, which declined to tai action. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter bad not been fairly present* and again requesting permission to appe before grand jury. The United States D trict Court, District of Nebraska. Warn K. Urbom, J., issued order to United Stal Attorney of District to make re-preseiv lion of matter, or applicants petition wot be granted. The United States appeah The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circ Judge, held that: (1) District Courts orc was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. Fagg, Circuit Judge, dissented w opinion.921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949F.2d253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d661 (1966) 426F.2d 1035 (1970) 449F.2d493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.3d 1255 (1997) 83 F.3d 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) 'I,ii d 1 John W. WAlker, RA. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (5011 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 314-244-2780 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA-DONNA J. McHENRY 3210 Henderson Road Little Rock. Ask.ans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 EM.AIL: mchen17d@swbeU.net October 22, 2002 Nir. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10 Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua\nCase No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District\nCase Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am particularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /John W. Walker TWW:js ccki (L 959 PWEK^UJWPORTER, 2d SERIES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, 6 F- LnTLB ROCK SCHOOL DIS-V. v. PUl.ASKI CVY. SCHOOL l\u0026gt;. Cllca9.59 r?.{l 716 (flIhClv. 1992) Hudsum Miltoll .Incksnn\nborene Josh- ua\nLcslie Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSLacy Josliun\nKntlvevinc JUiight\n717 Sara MatthcHs: Bcclry McKinney\nnev- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. I Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPal Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth IJtIh Rock Classroom Teachers Associalion\nSora Malthev/s\nBecky McKinney: DerPulaski Association Teachers\nLittle Rock of Ciassioom Teachers Association\nClassroom Alexa Arm f' 3:\n- sV rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nPaishsi Taylor\nMiles\nNAACP\n.Foyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor: Parsha Taylor\nRobert Willinghaiu\nham, Intervenors, Tonya Willing- Robert IVillingliaiu\nham. Intervenors, Tonya Willing- FUI..A8IU COUN'IY Sl'ECMl. SCHOOL strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Ballin,, ton\nKhayyam Do.vis\nJanice Deni\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTali) hlSTUlCl* ff 1\nNorth LitUe Kock School District\nLeon Bornes\nSheryl Dituu\nMac Faulkner\nKtchnrd A. (lld- Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLoieneJosh- dings\nman\nMarianne (Josser\nShirley bowcry: Doii Ilind- Boh Lyon\nua\nLeslie Wayne Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Joshua: Katherine Knijlif\nSara Matthews\nBecky McKinney\nDer- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylw: Robert Willingham\nTonya Willing, ham, Intervenors, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rod School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Gid- dings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- man\nShirley Lowery\nBob Lyon: George A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Raines\nDavid Sain: Bob SteniJer\nDale Ward\nJohn AVard\nhidy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- \u0026lt;lants, I?' George A. McCini j\nBoh Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Kaines\nDavid Sain\nPULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rock School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Giddings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- iiinn\nShirley i^ouery\nBob Lyon\nGeorge A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley: Buddy Raines\nDavid Sahi\nDob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- dsiils, Bob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Delen- dnnte, Philip E. Kaptnu\nJanet Fiilliaiu\nJohn Bilhciiuer\nP.A. Iloiliugsworth. Appelicc.s. Nos. Dl-IG.30, iind 91-7,402. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted J.an. 7, 1992. Decided March 23, .1992. Philip E. Kaplan\n.Fanet Pulliam\nJohn Bilheimer\nP.A. Hollingsworth, Appellee.s. LOTLE RfJCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appellee, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore: Pat G-e\nPjl Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nMorth Lillli Roch Classroom Teachers Associalion: Pulaski Teachers\nAssociation of Little Rock Teachers Association\nr Classroom Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEd Bullington\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Beni: John Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia \u0026gt; I  !? Philip E. Kaplan\nJanet FuUiaiuj John Bilheiinev\nP.A. Holliug.swortli, Appellants. LITTLE ROCK StHIOOL DISTRICT. Appeliniit, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPat Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nIaw firm which represented school district in school desegregation case applied for attorney fees for services rendevod. The United States District Court for the. Eastern District of Arkansas, Susan Webber WiiRht, .1., foiijxl that disUict was a prevailijig party, that the parties had agreed that district would prosecute fee petitions at firm's pievailirig rates, that district would pay difference ijetwoeii their billed rates and proceetls of any attorneys fees award, and that the jiavties had modified their agreement U) provide that group and firm would split evenly any award made by theamrt. Difjlrlct appealed. The Court of Appeals held thak (1) amount of Pulnskt Teachers\nAssociation Little of Rock . Teachers Association\nClassi'ooiu Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Biilling- too\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Dent\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLorene Josh- ua\nWayne Leslie Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Jofdnia\nKatherine Knight\naward was neilher clearly erroneous abuse of discrcUou\n(2) findiuK that nor con- h-acl existed between district\nainl firm and conlenU of the coutrncl\nwas suppoi l-ed by the evidence\nand (3) district was not es- topped to defend siRainst contention that superintendent had agreed to firm's proposal for 50/50 split in award of attorneys' fees. J Affirmed. izKlicbii CDRECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. 1. u.s: districtdourt EASTERN district ARKANSAS OCT 2 9 2002 JAMES VZ Plainluf Defendants Intervenors Intervenors ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS On July 22 - July 24,2002, an evidentiary hearing was held in this case on the issues raised by Little Rock School Districts motion for unitary status. 2. On September 13, 2002, a memorandum opinion was entered which ruled upon the issue of unitary status. 3. Last Friday, October 25, 2002, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, raising two issues: a. Whether I should disqualify because approximately fifteen years ago I represented The Honorable Henry Woods, the presiding judge in this case at that time. This representation was in connection with a mandamus petition by the LRSD and Joshua Intervenors (the latter represented by Mr. Walker, among others)\n6 9 5b. Ms. Janet Pulliam, former counsel of record for a party in this case, joined my staff on September 26, 2002, as a law clerk (she came aboard nearly two weeks after the September 13 Memorandum Opinion). 4. I will deal with the issue involving Ms. Pulliam first. From the outset, Ms. Pulliam has been kept completely separate from this case, and will be in the future. Attached as Exhibits A and B to this order are interoffice memos dealing with this issue. I believe they resolve this question. SERVING AS A LAWYER IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY 5. I turn now to my representation of Judge Woods in the 1987 mandamus proceeding. LRSD and Joshua Intervenors filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that the Eighth Circuit disqualify Judge Woods. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839F.2dl296, 1301 (S' Cir. 1988). I entered the case, at that time, for the limited purpose of representing Judge Woods before the Eighth Circuit in connection with the request that he be disqualified. Crucially important is the fact that the mandamus issues had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. The mandamus was argued orally before the Eighth Circuit (sitting in Little Rock) on November 3,1987, and, two days later, the Court handed down its decision, denying the request for mandamus. The November 5 opinion, LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112,113 (8* Cir. 1987), was very brief. and included this language: Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with respect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. I was shown as counsel of record for Judge Woods in mandamus in the November 5 decision. Thereafter, I had no further involvement. 26. The Eighth Circuit handed down a supplemental opinion on February 9,1988, LRSD V. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296 (8* Cir. 1988). In this opinion, the Court explained, in more detail, why the petition for mandamus had been denied in the November 5 opinion. I am not shown as counsel of record in the February 9 opinion. 7. Actually, the answer to Intervenors question appears in LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112. The court stated: [A] lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicus curiae in a case called Clarkv. BoardofEduc. ofthe Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-155. The District Court first consolidated Clark with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455 (b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice...a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We disagree with this argument. Clark was a closed case , or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partners activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. Id. at 113. Likewise, my appearance fifteen years ago was brief (transitory). I represented none of the parties, and, as stated above, the narrow recusal issue that I addressed on behalf of Judge Woods had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. 8. In United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4* Cir. 1998), the Court held that the recusal of a district judge was not required when the judge, as a lawyer, represented a creditor of the defendant (in a bankruptcy fraud case) because the creditors debt played no part in the defense or prosecution of the case. In other words, the key here is the phrase the matter in controversy. In United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, *11 (E.D. La. May 5, 1997), the Court stated: In this Courts view, a former representation should trigger the matter in controversy requirement if the issues with which it dealt are put in issue in the 3subsequent case in the sense that they need to be resolved by the judge who is presiding over the subsequent case. If the judge need not resolve an issue that either she or her former partners were involved in, then there is no appearance of impartiality and the purpose of Section 455(b)(2) is satisfied. In reaching this conclusion, the district judge in Louisiana cited LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296. WAIVER \u0026amp; ESTOPPEL 9. On top of the fact that my appearance in the case was brief and did not involve, in any way, any of the issues pending before me, a motion to disqualify me under section 455 would not be timely. On January 3,1984, the Joshua Intervenors, represented by Mr. John W. Walker and Mr. Wiley A. Branton, Jr., filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). On April 23, 1984, Judge Woods entered an Order (docket no. 470) denying Joshuas Petition to Intervene. On May 23,1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) directing Judge Woods to grant Joshua permission to intervene as parties in this case. Thus, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua before, during, and after the 1987 mandamus proceeding in which I appeared as counsel for Judge Woods. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in E. \u0026amp; J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9* Cir. 1992): It is true that under section 455 a judge may have an obligation to recuse himself or herself without a motion from one of the parties\nit is self-enforcing on the part of the judge. However, it does not necessarily follow that a party having information that raises a possible ground for disqualification can wait until after an unfavorable judgment before bringing the information to the courts attention. It is well established in this circuit that a recusal motion must be made in a timely fashion. The absence of such a requirement would result in... a heightened risk that litigants would use recusal motions for strategic purposes.\" While there is no per se rule that recusal motions must be made at a fixed point in order to be timely,... such motions should be filed with reasonable promptness after the ground for such a motion is ascertained. (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.) 410. On January 3, 2002, this case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). At that time, Mr. Walker knew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker, himself, helped initiate in an attempt to have Judge Woods removed from this case. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Yet, it was only after my September 13,2002 Memorandum Opinion ruling against Joshua on 5 of the 6 asserted grounds for denying unitary status that Joshuas lawyers chose to file the motion for a section 455 hearing. If there ever was a case of waiver and estoppel, this is it. I hasten to point out again. however, that even if Joshua had not elected to take a wait and see approach to deciding whether to file their section 455 motion, there would be no reason for me to recuse since I have never served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" 11. In Joshuas section 455 motion, there appears this curious language: The Court, in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals. . .hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Motion at 3. One reading the above quoted language with a jaundiced eye might take it to suggest that I attempted to hide my 1987 representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding. I described the language as curious since, as noted, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua at the time and one of the moving parties who filed the petition for writ of mandamus. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Thus, it is clear beyond peradventure that Mr. Walker knew of my being involved in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. For Joshuas benefit --1 will explain my reason for not citing these cases - a reason much less sinister than Joshua may be suggesting: they had no bearing on the unitary status issues that were decided in my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. 512. CONCLUSION Since this Order fully sets forth my involvement in, and my knowledge of, the matters raised in Joshuas section 455 motion, there is no reason for a hearing, i.e., there is nothing material I could add to the above. And, in my opinion, I have fully answered the concerns of Joshua. 13. If and when Joshuas counsel obtain copies of the briefs I filed in connection with the mandamus issue,' I will be willing to look at the issue again if, and only if, these briefs reveal that my participation in the case was significantly different from my clear recollection. At that time. however, Joshuas counsel would be required to convince me that raising the question at this late date, after losing, was not for strategic purposes. 14. Joshuas pleading raises the question of the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings. Answer: none. SUGGESTION 15. It is obvious that Joshuas counsel feel aggrieved by my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. I again commend the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to them. That Court has had a world of experience in hearing disappointed suitors. In fact, this is its forte. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2002. UN: STATES DISTRICT JUDG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITJ AND/OR 79(a) P ON 'My file has long since been destroyed. 6 BILL V L Wl 'ILSON JUDGE TO: DATE: RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 MEMORANDUM All Hands at 423 U. S. Courthouse September 30, 2002 LRSD case Janet Pullium was, at one time, one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District. So, she will not be involved in this case in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly. EXHIBIT AKay Holt 09/25/2002 11:13AM To: Mary Johnson/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christa Newburg/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Valerie Glover/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christina Conrad/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS cc: Subject: LRSD case Per Judge. When Janet comes on board weve got to put a Chinese wall between her and the LRSD case. She was involved in it at some point. EXHIBIT B I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1755","title":"Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Students","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj\"  } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. \"-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul\"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLT\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t\u0026lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 \"\"  EXHIBIT I A B. C. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with  2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?\". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be \"completed\" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- ---  -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- -  r  -i\"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ .,  - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.\u0026lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f\u0026lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE\u0026lt; i -- -- ---  , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_  -  j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02   II II II  II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II  II II -- -- \\ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - -     I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I  I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I  I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200  Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II  I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - \u0026amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003  :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I  I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r  \" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955  (\u0026lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r\u0026lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF  --='~0/~BY  ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_447","title":"Glossary","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":["1998/2004"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Glossary"],"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/447"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["197 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2CL1-J-------- BYk Christopher Helh Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3' Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALTS in September 2002. ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for conect answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) - Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, Sth, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team) - A process designed to increase stakeholders involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a childs progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral reading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE  An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help Sth and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of cuniculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement TestJR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science)  A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ - Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items conectly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank conesponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science educationNSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence) - A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) - A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth.(Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, commimity members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8**' and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score - Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesnt mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared.bnurt Rctc.'ul no if4-t'cn tn O 1 Sec. s dunt 3^ I3'?'i pizjis 43 TERMINOLOGY Some terms used in this report are specific to the field of personnel services (such as relevant labor market). Other terms we use may be familiar to the general public (teacher, for example), bitt have specialized meanings in the context of human resources or the operations of an individual school district. Below we have alphabetized and defined several terms that are frequently used in this report. We drew the definitions from interviews with PCSSD personnel administrators, the district's Professional Negotiations Agreement 1997-2000, and publications of the Society for Human Resource Management. .Building administrators: Certified employees who have supervisory or evaluative responsibility and who are assigned full time to schools. Principals and assistant principals are the two positions in this category. Central office administrators: Administrators who have districtwide rather than building-specific responsibilities. These include the superintendent, assistant superintendents, directors, supervisors, and coordinators. Support staff (secretaries, clerks, etc.) who work at the central office are not counted as part of the central administration in this report. Certified staff: Individuals holding positions that require valid Arkansas teaching certification as a condition of employment. At the building level, certified staff includes administrators, teachers, counselors, and various specialists. Full-Time Equivalency (FTE): A method of calculating and recording the amount of time for which an employee is assigned to a certain position. The PCSSD expresses positions in terms of FTEs when determining staffing requirements for each school. For example, in a secondary school, a full-time teacher is counted as 1.00 FTE if he or she teaches six periods a day and also has a preparation period. If another teacher at the same school teaches three periods a day and has one preparation, he or she is counted as working 4/7 time, or .57 FTE (4 assigned periods divided by 7 possible periods equals the FTE). Unless otherwise noted, we have reported positions in the PCSSD by full-time equivalency. Relevant labor market: The number of individuals who have a specific type of training or certification and who are located within a specified geographic area from which a potential employer might recruit. Special needs positions: Certain certified positions, designated by PCSSD, in which blacks have historically been under-represented, such as math and science teachers. Teacher: Any certified person employed by the district in an instructional position who has no evaluative or supervisory responsibility over other certified instructional personnel. Page 4GLOSSARY The extracurricular activities we examined in this report are defined below. Some explanations include not only the activitys function in the PCSSD, but also relevant background information. Athletics are competitive interscholastic team sports. All PCSSD high schools have boys teams in baseball, basketball, football, and track and girls teams for basketball, track, and volleyball. With the exception of baseball, the districts junior high schools provide all of the same team sports as do the high schools. Some individual schools sponsor teams in such sports as golf, swimming, cross country, and tennis, but not all PCSSD schools offer these sports to students. The interscholastic sports program in the PCSSD operates under the auspices of the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA), which establishes and enforces rules and regulations for athletic competition in the state. Arkansas high schools compete with each other within classifications assigned by the AAA based on enrollment. For example, within the PCSSD, Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills compete against the states other large high schools in class 5 A. North Pulaski High School is a 4A school, and Oak Grove and Robinson compete at the 3A level. Spirit teams incorporate both cheerleaders and drill or dance teams. All PCSSD secondary schools sponsor both cheerleading and drill teams. Cheerleaders are a team of students who elicit and direct organized cheering in support of school athletic teams and other activities. According to the book Cheer! Fight! Win!, cheerleaders select yells to rally crowd support or to signify success at various times during a game or contest. They help to interpret the progress of the game to the crowd and elicit responses from the crowd that will benefit the team. Unlike cheerleading, the drill team is not directly involved in the ongoing events of a game or contest. Drill teams perform lengthy, set routines to music. The team performance is visual and requires the full attention of the audience to be appreciated. Drill team performances are usually presented as part of halftime entertainment. The term drill team is actually a misnomer in many high schools. Traditionally, drill team choreography was based on precision marching and repetition, like that of the well-known Kilgore Rangerettes ofKilgore, Texas. Because their performances consist of high- energy dance routines set to popular music rather than precision marching, modern drill teams can be more aptly called dance teams, a designation that is becoming common throughout the country, as it is in the PCSSD. During the last two decades, the worldwide performance standards of cheerleading and drill team have changed significantly with the growth of camps, clinics, and competitions. Increasingly, the general public has begun to recognize cheerleading as an athletic activity as skill levels have increased in areas such as gymnastics, pyramids, and advanced jumps. Colleges and universities frequently offer Report. ' The PCSSD began using the term dance team instead of drill team in its 1998-99 Non-Athletic Activities Page 7 particularly talented high school cheerleaders and drill team members scholarships, tuition reductions, grants for textbook purchase, or course credit to attend their institutions. Like the districts athletic teams, PCSSD spirit teams operate under AAA regulations regarding eligibility, conduct, and competition. The Arkansas Cheerleading Coaches Association (ACCA) and the Arkansas Drill/Dance Team Association (ADTA), sub-groups of the AAA, disseminate spirit team information to member schools, coordinate skill development and safety clinics, and sponsor regional and state competitions. Along with the sports teams, Arkansas high school cheerleading and drill teams compete for state championships in classifications based on school enrollment PCSSD schools have proved formidable in recent state competition. The Sylvan Hills High School cheerleading squad won the 1999 Class 5 A state championship and the Jacksonville High School cheerleaders placed third in Class 5A. Non-athletic activities that we examined consist of Beta Club, National Honor Society, and student government. Beta Club and National Honor Society serve the purpose of recognizing and promoting academic excellence. These organizations generally invite students to join based on prerequisites such as a certain grade point average, teacher recommendations, and a record of leadership in the school. Student government is a body of student-elected representatives who exercise leadership in varied school affairs. Beta Club The National Beta Club was founded in 1934 by a group of U.S. educators who wanted to recognize and encourage academic achievement, leadership, character development, and community service among high school students. In 1961, the National Beta Club developed the National Junior Beta Club to foster the same type of growth in younger children. Schools that include any of grades 5 throughl2 are eligible to apply for a chapter of the National Beta Club. The Beta Club provides members with opportunities to develop leadership skills through the Broyhill Leadership Conference, the Harris Leadership Program, and the annual state Beta conferences. The national Beta organization strongly encourages local chapters to exemplify the clubs motto, Let Us Lead By Serving, through undertaking service projects in their schools and local communities. Beta Club members pay a one-time membership fee. All Beta club members must be performing at or above grade level and meet the grade requirements set by the local chapter. The national organization does not establish a specific academic requirement for membership, because systems of grading vary in different schools. Among the PCSSD junior highs. Fuller, Jacksonville-South, Jacksonville-North, and Robinson have maintained chapters of Beta Club during the period of time examined in this report. With the exception ofNorth Pulaski, all of the PCSSD high schools have sponsored Beta Club chapters during the same period. Page 8National Honor Society In 1919, a principal in Omaha, Nebraska proposed the idea of an organization committed to placing the regular and faithful performances of academic work in its proper place in the estimation of the student body. Based on his vision, in 1921 the first chapter of the National Honor Society (NHS) was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Now more than 30,000 chapters of NHS are active in both public and private schools across the United States, recognizing and honoring the importance of outstanding scholarship by both junior high and high school students. The national organization requires all NHS chapters to perform a service project for the school or community. In addition, each member must develop an individual service project. According to the national NHS constitution, membership selection is based on four criteria: scholarship, leadership, service, and character. To fulfill the scholarship requirement, students must have a cumulative grade point average of 85%, B, 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale), or the equivalent standard of excellence. That scholastic requirement is the minimum scholastic average. An individual school chapter may raise the scholarship average needed to be eligible for membership at that school. Eligible students are selected for NHS by a vote of the school faculty council based on the four criteria. The faculty council develops working definitions of those criteria and provides some objective measure of a students qualifications in each of the areas. Fuller, Northwood, and Sylvan Hills are the PCSSD junior high schools with NHS chapters. All PCSSD high schools have an NHS chapter. Student Government Often called student council, this school organization provides an avenue for students to develop leadership skills and gain a better understanding of basic democratic principles and processes. Student councils serve as an outlet for students to express their opinions, concerns, and ideas regarding the life of the school. Through student councils, students may become involved in planning and coordinating a wide range of activities, from school dances and special assemblies to community projects such as a canned food drive. More than 18,000 secondary school student councils in the United States are members of the National Association of Student Councils (NASC), which was founded in 1931 to nurture the development of student councils and student leadership programs and to provide support and technical assistance to member schools. The structure and size of student government may differ from school to school, but generally the main body of the student council is comprised of student-elected representatives who are elected at-large, by classes or grade level (e.g., sophomore, junior, senior), or by homerooms. The organization is usually led by an executive board consisting of a president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer who are elected by the entire student body. The NASC does not establish standards for student council officers or representatives. Each student council establishes its own constitution that describes the qualifications for all elected offices and outlines the electoral process. All junior and senior high schools in the PCSSD have student councils. Page 9Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc ), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - are the ACTAAP tests. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools\nMabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not born in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing.PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math.Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Revised 12-7-01 ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmark Exams - the ACTAAP tests including tests of literacy and math at the fourth, sixth, and eighth grade plus literacy at the eleventh grade and end of course exams in algebra and geometry. They are based on the states curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example: In grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. I jCRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE. CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world.lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. Pathwise - is the name of the states training program for first year teachers. It is based on the standards the state uses for teacher licensing. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. 1PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed inNew Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5,1, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it correctly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8.TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement. VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children learn to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.Acronyms and Terminology ACTAAP (Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program) - ACTAAP is a comprehensive process that encompasses high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. ACTAAP is the fulfillment of Act 999 of 1999 by the legislature that mandated that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. ACSIP Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Process) - is a five-year self-study and school improvement plan required by Standard XIX of the Arkansas Standards for Accreditation. It requires schools to collect data and involve staff, parents, students, and community in developing a school improvement plan. ALE (Alternative Learning Environment) - Educational facility designed to serve students who, for some reason (behavior, age, absenteeism, etc.), are having difficulty achieving in a regular classroom setting. ALT (Achievement Level Test) - is a criterion-referenced test based on the LRSD curriculum. Test items were selected from a test bank provided by the Oregon firm that developed the ALT. Students in grades 2-8 take these tests in the spring of each year. Prior to 2001-02, the ALT was administered in both fall and spring. AP (Advanced Placement) - a program provided by The College Board that gives students opportunities to take college-level courses and exams while still in high school. The College Board offers 35 courses and exams in 19 subject areas. Animated Literacy - program used in LRSD kindergartens introduces students to letters and sounds. Benchmarks - specific examples of the academic standards at each grade level or in each academic course. Example\nIn grade 3 students will learn the parts of a letter and will write a thank you letter, a personal letter, and a letter to the editor. CPMSA (Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement) - is the LRSD initiative to improve math and science curriculum and instruction which is funded largely by the NSF grant. CRT (Criterion Referenced Test) - a test customized around a state curriculum. The Primary Benchmark (Grade 4) is a CRT. The test items are based on the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers with the support of the ADE.CSRD (Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program) - a discretionary grant program designed to support school improvement planning and school reform initiative, particularly in reading and math. Grants are awarded for one year with the option of renewal for two additional years based on demonstration of successful implementation practices and evaluation results. DRA (Developmental Readiness Assessment) - the second of the two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase with difficulty as the childs reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills including comprehension. This too is administered in both fall and spring. Direct Instruction - A method of reading instruction that relies heavily on phonics skills taught in a very controlled and scripted manner. ECE (Early Childhood Education) - this term is used by many to refer to pre-school age children, but professionals in the field recognize the early childhood years as being from birth to age 8. EYE (Extended Year Education) - is commonly called year-round school. LRSD has three extended year elementary schools: Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff. These schools have a school year that is the same length as all other schools, but the schedule is spread out over 11 months. ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. ELLA helps teachers to enhance literacy to students by understanding how students learn to read and by practicing a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. ELOB (Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound) - a model for comprehensive school reform for elementary, middle, and high schools. ELOB emphasizes learning by doing, with emphasis on character growth, teamwork, reflection, and literacy. Teachers connect academic learning to adventure, service, and character development through interdisciplinary projects. GT - Gifted and Talented - program designed for students in LRSD identified as above average based on norm reference and criterion reference tests and classroom performance. Program provides classroom activities designed to promote accelerated learning and higher levels of performance. IB - International Baccalaureate - a rigorous pre-university course of studies that leads to examinations for secondary students. IB is a two-year comprehensive curriculum that allows students to fulfill requirements for various national education systems. IB diploma holders gain admission to universities throughout the world. lEP (Individual Education Plan) - primarily developed for special ed students by committee consisting of special ed teacher, counselor, parent, student, building administrator and any other person with direct contact with student who can facilitate learning process, such as a physical therapist or psychologist. Joint Committee on Standard for Education Evaluation - a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of personnel, program, and student evaluation in education. The Joint Committee has published two sets of widely used standards for personnel evaluation and educational program evaluations. LEP (Limited English Proficiency) - a legal term for students who were not bom in the United States or whose native language is not English and who cannot participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. NCE - Normal Curve Equivalent - an equal-interval normalized standard score, which makes different kinds of comparisons possible. Converting from a percentile to an NCE does not change a students rank. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - is a professional organization that often makes recommendations regarding mathematics instruction and curriculum NRT (Norm Referenced Test) - test items are built around a test vendors set of curricular objectives. The test provides information that compares the performance of students against the performance of a sample of students from across the United States. The SAT-9 is the NRT currently given in Arkansas at grades 5, 7, and 10. NSF (National Science Foundation) - is a government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and fund research. The LRSD is currently receiving in multi-year grant from NSF that funds improvements in mathematics and science. Newcomers Centers - are secondary schools that offer special services or assistance to LEP students. LEP students may transfer to these schools rather than attend their assigned school. The newcomer centers are Dunbar and Hall. LRSD discontinued the elementary newcomer centers. Observation Survey - one of two early literacy assessments used in the LRSD in grades K-2. It consists of five sub-tests (letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words) and is administered in both the fall and the spring. PIF (Pupil Information Form) - is the basic student record form. It is completed by the parents and has all basic information. It is sometimes called the green sheet by school workers, due to its color. PIP (Priority Intervention Procedures) - is the new name given to what has previously been called a school improvement plan. These plans are generated by the Campus Leadership teams at each school and they address areas in which the school needs to make improvements, for example achievement or school climate. Percentile - scores that are expressed in terms of the percentage of persons in the standardization sample who fall below a given raw score. A percentile indicates the individuals relative position in the standardized sample (the lower the percentile, the poorer the individuals standing). Percentiles are non-equal interval numbers. (Note - Do not confuse with percentages which are raw scores expressed in terms of the percentage of correct items) Reading Recovery - an intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand. The program is based on helping children with poor reading/readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. Refrigerator Curriculum - grade-level curriculum documents published by the LRSD for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. SAT - 9 (Stanford Achievement Test - ninth edition) - the norm referenced test given in Arkansas. LRSD administers it at grades 5, 7, 9. SEP (Student Education Plan) - generally used as discipline or behavior plan for students experiencing difficulty in the classroom. Persons involved in SEP development include: building administrator, counselor, student, classroom teacher, and parents. SFA (Success for All) - an instructional program that features a schoolwide reading curriculum, highly structured lessons, frequent assessments of student progress, and ongoing teacher training. Scaled Scores -percentage of persons passing an item expresses item difficulty in terms of an ordinal scale\nthat is, it conectly indicates the rank order or relative difficulty of an item. Section 504 - a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in any program receiving federal funds. Under 504, a student meets the definition of handicapped if he or she has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of or is regarded as handicapped by others. Smart Start - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade-level requirements in reading and math by grade 4. Smart Start focuses on accountability and well-defined educational standards in reading and math. Smart Step - an Arkansas state initiative based on the premise that all children will meet or exceed grade level requirements in reading and math by grade 8. Again, as with Smart Start, the focus is on accountability and clearly-defined standards in reading and math for grades 5-8. TIMMS (The Third International Mathematics and Science Study) - whose findings indicated that the mathematics curriculum in the U.S. is much broader and has less depth than the curriculum in other countries where students have greater mathematics achievement.VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) - is the LRSD office of school volunteers. This same office also coordinates school and community partnerships. Individual volunteers are sometimes referred to as a VIP. Whole Language - a philosophy of teaching and learning based on the assumption that children leam to read and write best using real text (stories) rather than sets of practice exercises (worksheets). Whole language can include the teaching of phonics.\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1012","title":"Aerospace Magnet grant proposal","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"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--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Magnet grant proposal"],"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/1012"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["532 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [ and] Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with .limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 57% (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? (There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Time line\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number S, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school . However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers. \" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer. \" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation proprarn proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" ( Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. \" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. ( Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" (Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and] Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures (in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc., on average.\" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $3,370 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action . 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Although the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community. \" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans .included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [and) Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 5 7 % (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? ( There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Timeline\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number 5, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school. However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers.\" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer.\" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation propram proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" (Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed.\" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. (Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" ( Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and) Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new -magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures ( in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc. , on average. \" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $ 3, 3 7 0 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action. 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Al though the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community.\" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1208","title":"Little Rock School District's Compliance Report","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-10-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District's Compliance Report"],"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/1208"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["122 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 - Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September I, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of L9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 - Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented m schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. 1bree of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to - and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us si ones(a),mwsgw .com sjones@ilj .com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 .. P~e 20 of,,30 Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Educadon: May,2005 December, ! 998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyel) Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Docum-en-t 40-50- -Filed 10/16/2006 ~~~-~ ?.! .~ ( 30 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~-~~ge 22 o!}0_ Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present EducatJon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional e~1jeriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock. Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of See-0ndary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 References: ----------- -- ------ Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-{\n216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects 'provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platforn1 recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM A.IX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise-- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and p erfonnance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. 'i ----------------~ LRSD Bl Tools if! EXHIBIT B .._ ____ .,, Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, w]ch houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT ean centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bf Tools Page3 ofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is  then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page 5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAF cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click oftbe mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7 .x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tools Page 6 of l Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to dril1 from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Tools Page 7 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 mea: QtRBATIUIOmomJIS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT . For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Leaming, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to . the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a pennanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis.trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program - Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: ( 1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally eval~ated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (I) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the  LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.  40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@ili.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 ---------------------\"-------- Career ObJ~ttvo: Pni!euioaal Experience: 2004-Preseat 1998-Pmont Education: Danyell Crutchne1d CuDUDin,s 5 Ben HOiAJl Con Little Rockt Ar.tamu 72210 (501) 407-Sm (501) 4-47-1737 To utillf.O proven academic and profeseiOJW experience to ob(ain a ch1Uoogi11g positiou u 1n adminillrator that will allow fCt' growth and an opportunity to contribute to 1. prop,ivo cducatiooal onvironmezit. High Schools That Wo(. Coordinator J. A. Fair Systcma Magnet High School Little R.ock, Arb.aw 72210 Randy Ruthrnord. Principal EnsJiahTc~ber J. A. Fair Sy,toim Magnet Hiib School LitlioRQclc,.Arbnsas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;l May. 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and SupcmU\u0026gt;D, University of Arlcansas at Little Rock Dccombor, 1993 Muter of Education, Sccondaey Education, University of ArbDsas at Uttlo Rock May, 1997 Bachcl of .Arts, English, Univc:raity of ArlcaDsu at Litt.le ~ Profwlonally Relaud Actlvitia: Actina Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education S1Udioldcr Southem Regional Bducali011 Boazd Ut.eracy Team mombcr Teacher oft.be Year Ed~ational Spcc!al!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 Refemlca\nLinda Young Grants Cooldinator (501) 447-3372 work (SOl) 225-5439 home Jill Broob Principal David O'Dodd Blcmcntary (501)447-4300 work (SO l) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Heari?lg . (501} 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D ~istant Principal  J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High Scbcol (501) 447-1700 ext 1710 work (501) 6-66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 Da11.yell Crutchfield Cummlnp 5 Bea Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arwuu 71210 (501} 407-8097 (501) '47.1737 Caretr ObJe~Uve: Pr.CeatonaJ Experimco: 2004-Present .Ed1tettlon: To utll!zo proven academic and jX'Ofossional experience lo obcain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn1Jutc to a prosn,slive cdul\national onvlromncnt, High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Fair Syatems Magnet High School Little ~ok. Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthcrlbtd, Principal English Teach J. A. Fair S)'l~ms Magnet HiiJi School LittloRo\u0026lt;:k,Ar.kallsu 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priucipal May, 2005 Educational Specialist, ducational Administration and SUpcrviaiOl,I, University of Arbnsas at Little Rock D'\"mbcr, 1998 , Master oflldUClltioa, \u0026amp;condaty Education, trniVaity of Arkaasu al Little Rode May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, lroleu.tonally Related ActMtlu: University of Arlcansas at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section .504 Coordinator Counc:il of Secondary Education Stakcholdct Southom Regional Eduutioo Board Literacy Team JllOl11ber Teacher of the Year Bduoatio.aal Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 llc!eraic:es: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home rn1 Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elcmcnwy (501) 447-4300 woJk (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501)407-0817 homo Sharon Cauley, B\u0026lt;ID Assiatant Principal J.A. Fair Systeots Ma,snct High Schoo! (S01)447-1700en 1710 worlc (SOI) 666-Ql6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platfonn that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common seIYices to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Perfonnance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and H!gll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise--wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet. BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objcx:ts Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform -~-~-~-,-~-m_ec_t_th_e_n_eed_s_o_f_th_e_Ll__tt1_e_R_o_ck_S_ch_oo_l D-is_tn_c_t t_o_da_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. __ ,.(_i _ ~EXH-IBIT __ ,,] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of tl!,e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infoIU1ation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application.  Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world SUIIldard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBITDOIJ l'll#,11o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and rep_ort design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what featw-es are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic a.nd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new IITML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF foxmat, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Cootlguratioo The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a. report is nm. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find bro.ken links, formula cnors., and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An UfSD Bl TooJ1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Entc:rprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granu1ar Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to sec a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in tho Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or colwnn-level filters azid map these filters to users or U$Cl' groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can th.en choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you oan allow users to refresh it on demazid. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report wider an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will' also return only the data the user is entitled 10 see. L1ISD Bl Tools Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting. and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthc same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store COillIIl?nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabiJities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze infonnation in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. CLAP lntelllgence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements ofboth information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort. filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, aod relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBfTools Pq,Sofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional databa.so servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IDM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For exampl~ native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAF server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP scrva, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live: to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP work.books may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web, Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl T* Pq16of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be ma.de available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore-summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. J.IISD8/Toou Pqa7o/7\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1708"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "}],"pages":{"current_page":10,"next_page":11,"prev_page":9,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":108,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}