{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_377","title":"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":null,"dc_date":["2004/2006"],"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","Educational law and legislation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["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/377"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: April 5, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Through: Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Subject: Update on the final report on Compliance Review 06995008 conducted by the Office for Civil Rights. Summary: A review of the districts progress reports was submitted to the Little Rock School District on March 18, 2004. The review addressed specific actions taken by the Little Rock School District to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities and services to national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. The report received by the district provided specific details in each on of the compliance areas that OCR has determined that the Little Rock School District has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the Commitment to Resolve. Objective: To provide an update on the progress to date that the Little Rock School District has made in meeting the terms of the Commitment to Resolve  Compliance Review 06995008. Expected Outcomes: N/A Population: National origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. ESL Report to Board April 22, 2004 Page 2 Budget Amount/Budget Source: ESL Department Manager: Karen E. Broadnax, Supervisor, ESL Department Long range: Continuation of the Little Rock School District ESL Program Other Agencies Involved: N/A Expectations of District: Continuation of the services provided to_national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131-12161, and their implementing regulations. Needed Staff: N/A Comments: None Recommendation: We request that the Board of Education accept this report.XT OF u 2, ^TtSO^^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SOUTHERN DIVISION, DALLAS OFFICE mar 1 8 200^ Ref: 06995008 Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Holmes: The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Southern Division, Dallas Office has completed a review of the progress reports, which were submitted to OCR by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Little Rock, Arkansas, to address the specific actions taken by the LRSD to ensure the provision of equal educational opporti^ties and services to national origin language-minority students who are limited English proficient (LEP). The LRSD voluntarily submitted a Commitment to Resolve (CTR), which was, acceped by OCR on September 30, 1999, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil ^ts Act of 1964 ( i e VI) 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131- 12161, and their implementing regulations. In the progress reports, the LRSD provided OCR with documentation pertinent to the implementation of the CTR. Based on a review of the progress reports md additmnal information gathered during the on-site monitoring visits conducted by OCR on December 10- 11 2002 and March 11-13,2003, OCR has determined that the LRSD has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the CTR. Provided below, by commitment provision, is an explanation of how OCR reached this determination: Identification of Students With a Primary Home Language Other Than English The progress reports revealed that, at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year the LRSD administered a Home Language Survey (HLS) to all students to identify those students who have a primary (first-learned) or home language (language influence) that is other than Enghs (PHLOTE). In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD directed staff (i.e., principals, counselors, registrars, and secretaries) at every school site and at the Student Assignment Center to secure a completed HLS for all students upon imtial enrollment. Further, the LRSD developed a procedure that allows for other methods of identifying 1999 BRYAN STREET. SUITE 2600. DALLAS. TEXAS 75201-6810 www.ed.gov Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Page 2 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent PHLOTE students based on teacher referral, counselor recommendation, and interviews with parents. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Assessment of PHLOTE Students A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented procedures for assessing PHLOTE students in all four English language proficiency areas (i.e., speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension) to determine which students are LEP. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD assessed and/or reassessed all PHLOTE students by administering an assessment instrument (i.e.. Language Assessment Scales). The information further revealed that the LRSD provided training to all LRSD staff responsible for administering the assessment instrument to ensure proper test administration and interpretation of test scores. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Placement of LEP Students and Ensuring Appropriate Services The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented a policy requiring the district to provide alternative language program (ALP) services to LEP students through a research-based English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) program. Information reviewed revealed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 1,2, and 3 on the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) are identified as LEP and are placed in the ESL program after obtaining consent from the parent/guardian of the student. The information showed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 4, and 5 on the LAS are considered fluent in the English language and are identified as non-LEP and, as a result, are placed in the regular education program. A review of information revealed that the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), which is comprised of at least one or more ESL teachers, a counselor, and a campus administrator, is responsible for making placement decisions. The information revealed that the LRSD provided training to LPAC members as follows: 1) OCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\n2) interpretation of language proficiency assessments\n3) laws and rules governing confidentiality of records\nand 4) procedures for identification, placement, and exiting students from the ALP. The LPAC is responsible for ensuring that the parents of LEP students placed in the ALP receive an explanation of the benefits of the ALP in a language they can understand. The information indicated that the LRSD ensures the delivery of language support services to LEP students whose parents have refused placement in the ALP by providing training to regular education teachers in ESL methodologies and instructional strategies, parental involvement, tutoring, summer school, and by monitoring the academic progress of such students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements.Page 3 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Selected Alternative Language Services Model The progress reports revealed that the LRSD selected a research-based English-as-a-Second- Language (ESL) program to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of LEP students at all grade levels. The information showed that the goal of the ESL program is to enable LEP students to master English language skills (i.e., reading, wnting, speaking, and listening) and content area concepts and skills so that students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD established the same curriculum standards and grade-level/course benchmarks for all students, including LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Staffing and Staff Development The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed procedures to ensure that the district has appropriate staff to implement the ALP. The information in the progress reports showed that the LRSD made significant progress with respect to the number of teachers who obtained an ESL endorsement through the Arkansas Department of Educations ESL Endorsement Program. In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD has developed an ESL Training Program to provide continuous training opportunities for all personnel (e.g., principals, regular education, special education, gifted and talented, etc.) responsible for delivering instruction to LEP students. Specifically, the LRSD provides training to staff on how to adapt the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments for the delivery of instruction to LEP students. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD designed an appraisal instrument to assess the performance of teachers who deliver ALP services to LEP students. OCR reviewed documentation pertaining to the training provided to administrators on the use of the evaluation instnunent and on observation techmques to enable them to identify ESL methodologies. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Materials The LRSD developed procedures to ensure that materials and equipment are appropriate for the implementation of the ALP. The progress report revealed that the LRSD surveyed ALP staff to determine whether there was a need for additional materials and equipment. The information showed that the LRSD provided teachers with materials and equipment, which are appropriate to the curriculum, and comparable in quality, availability, and grade level to the materials provided for the instruction of non-LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Page 4 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Reclassification and Exit The progress reports revealed that the LRSD established and implemented procedures for the exiting, monitoring, and reclassification of LEP students. The information indicated that the criteria employed by the LRSD is based on objective criteria using the LAS test scores in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension plus other criteria to determine whether students will be able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the information showed that a LEP student must score a 3/4 or a 3/5 or at the Fully English Proficient Level on the LAS post-test prior to exiting the ALP. The information revealed that the LPAC monitors the academic progress of LEP students who exit the ALP for a period of two years to ensure academic success in the regular education program. Specifically, the LPAC ensures that exited students are successfully participating in the regular education program by reviewing the following: 1) grades in all core subject areas\n2) teacher observations\n3) counselor comments\nand 4) assessment results. When the LPAC determines that a student needs to re-enter the ESL program, the student is placed back, into the ALP after obtaining approval from the parent of the student. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Parental Notice The LRSD developed procedures for providing notice to the parents of PHLOTE students of school activities in a language they can understand. The progress reports revealed that the schools mainUin a list of all PHLOTE students whose parents are limited English proficient and require communication in another language. OCR reviewed the documents which have been translated by the LRSD, to include but not limited to the following: Home Language Survey, Notice of School Placement, Notice of ESL Program Services, Notice of Testing Exemption, Exit Letter to Parents, K-8 Curriculum Standards and Grade-Level/Course Benchmarks, Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks, Summer School Applications, Parent Involvement Conference Notices, and the LRSDs Parent/Student Handbook. In addition, the information showed that bilingual staff at the schools translated newsletters, notices, letters, and flyers into other languages. Further, the LRSD advertises information in local publications in Spanish. The information showed that the LRSD disseminated a list of translators/interpreters to the school sites. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Education The progress reports showed that the LRSD revised its policies and procedures pertaining to the process for referring, identifying, evaluating, and placing LEP students with disabilities. The progress reports revealed that ALP staff and Special Education Department staff share information to ensure that LEP students with disabilities receive special education and alternative language services concurrently. A review of the progress reports revealed that thePage 5 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent LRSD provided training to special education staff (i.e., speech pathologists, resource teachers, and psychological examiners) in ESL methodologies to ensure the proper delivery of both ALP and special education services. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD provides information to parents in a language they can understand pertaining to their rights and procedural safeguards by utilizing an interpreter or by providing information that has been translated into a language they can understand. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Opportunity Programs The progress reports revealed that the LRSD implemented procedures to ensure that LEP students are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the Gifted and Talented (GT) program at the elementary level and in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at the secondary level. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD provided information about the GT program to parents in their native language. In addition, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD staff administered a nonverbal assessment instrument (i.e., Torrance Thinking Creatively) to test LEP students who had been referred for placement in the GT program. The progress reports further revealed that the LRSD provided cultural sensitivity training, training in identifying the characteristics of language minority gifted students, and ESL instructional strategies to LRSD staff. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Program Evaluation and Modification A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRD has adopted procedures to conduct an annual longitudinal performance evaluation of the ALP and make modifications to the ALP based on the results as required by the results of the program evaluation. The information showed that the LRSD evaluated its ALP on an annual basis in which it reviewed the following\n1) curriculum service delivery\n2) materials and resources\n3) staffing and staff development\n4) student academic progress\n5) longitudinal data comparing LEP students to non-LEP students, and LEP students in the program to LEP students not in the program with respect to academic achievement, attendance, drop-out rate, graduation rate, retention rate, gifted and talented program placement, and specid education program placement of LEP, and students who have exited the ALP, and LEP students not served in the ALP. The information showed that the LRSD made the necessary program modifications and improvements as required by the results of each program evaluation. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student recordsPage 6 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student records revealed that the LRSD maintains, at a minimum, the following documentation in student cumulative folders: Home Language Survey, LAS assessment data\ncommumcations with parents in a language they can understand\nplacement decisions\nreport cards\nmodifications\ndecisions to exit student\nand decisions for students to reenter the ALP. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR andcomplied with the OCR reporting requirements. After analyzing the above information provided by the LRSD, OCR has determined that the LRSD has met all of the commitments as specified in the CTR. Therefore, OCR is closing tiiis compliance review contingent upon the LRSDs continued implementation of the terms delineated in the September 30, 1999. While no further progress reports are required, OCR understands that the LRSD will continue to conduct qualitative and quantitative program evaluations in accordance with its civil rights responsibilities. OCR is available to provide technical assistance to the LRSD and will work with you and LRSD staff to ensure continued compliance with the regulatory requirements imder Title VI, Section 504, and Title IL Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwananted invasion of personal privacy. We appreciate your cooperation and that of your staff, especially the assistance provided by Ms. Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. John F. Stephens at 214/880-2464 or Ms. Maria H. Gonzalez at 214/880-4918. Sincerely, Office for Civil Rights Southern Division, Dallas Office C: Ms. Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURtR ECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT I 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 Courts 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* Century Community Page 1 of 19Case 4\n82-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 of LRSDs efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSDs Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSDs 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\nA. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in\n(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 19Case 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 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 Comphance 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 ICase 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 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\nB. 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 Afiican-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 LRSDs 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 Afiican-American students. Part of LRSDs 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 at 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 19Case 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 hadj'developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSDs 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 LRSDs 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 19Case 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 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes. Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSDs 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 19Case 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 wiin the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs 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 19Case 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 LRSDs 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 African- American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross - to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 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 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thnve, 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, 2U 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 19Case 4\n82-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 Afiican-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. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of Afiican-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 19Case 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 LRSDs record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of e 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 19Case 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 LRSDs 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. _ addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive In program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19Case 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 LRSDs 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, 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. 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 19Case 4\n82-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. 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 the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are\nPage 16 of 19Case 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. LRSD 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 LRSDs 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 Courts July 12, Page 17 of 19Case 4\n82-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 Courts 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 /sZ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006,1 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 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkeratty@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 19Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 of 30 Danyell Crutchfleld Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: 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. Professional Experience: 2004-Prescnt High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet Hi^ School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Pre8eiit English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educadonal Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist I 3 I I EXHIBIT ACase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 21 of 30 References: Linda Young Granta 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.0 Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work \u0026lt;501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501)407-8097 (501) 447-1737 Career Objective: To utilize proven academic and jxofessional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growdi and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment, Professional Experience: 2004-Present High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal 1998-Present English Teacher L A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Education: May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock December, 1998 Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Professionally Related Activities: Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational SpecialistCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 23 of 30 References\nLinda Young Granta Coordinator \u0026lt;501)447-3372 work \u0026lt;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 \u0026lt;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 \u0026lt;501) 666-6216 homeCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Bl Platform Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform 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 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 Districts 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 platform 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 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 information, and scale on a single machineor clusters of machines while maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform s key attributesperformance, reliability, and scalabihtyare 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 Enterprisi covered by a 24/7 technical customer supporthas 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 performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. EXHIBIT LRSD B/ Tools 3 I 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 orgamzed reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data Ihis data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3 normal 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 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 industrys 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 meamngful 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: LRSDBlToois Page 2 of!Case 4\n82-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 technolo^es. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of appEcation 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\nReports 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 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 infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is mn Dependency 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-Ievel security processes. An LRSD BI Tools Page i of!Case 4\n82-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 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 minimise the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-Ievel 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 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 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 iL All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD 31 Tools Page 4 of!Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 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 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 Dynaimc Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when youre 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 InfoView is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District mformation. 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. InfoView is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within youre the Little Rock School District IT infi:astructure. 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, theyre typically difficult to use and dont provide your non-technical with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. users 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 frill power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reportsformatting 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 UtSD Bl Tools Pages o/7Case 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 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. Specd-of-Thought Analysis clap 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 identity 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 e 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, Hvperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for todays leading, multidimensional database serversMicrosoft 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 orgamzations 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 dont 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 LRSDBlToois Page 6 of?Case 4\n82-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 drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized informatinn 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. LRSDBIToois Page 7 of 7Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, October 20, 2006 7:06 AM CompRepoct06.doc: ComplyRep06oct19.doc FW: Re: compliance report From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:05 AM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Okay. I am enclosing two documents compiled by myself and the statisticians. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:26 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Re: compliance report Chris Heller will be in the office tomorrow. He would like to schedule a meeting but would like to be provided a written response in advance of any meeting. Brenda \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/19/2006 2:52 PM \u0026gt; Brenda/Chris, PRE has further discussed our concerns and we can provide the information requested. Let us know if you want to meet. Karen From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Fwd: Re: compliance report Karen: I spoke with Chris again and he said to tell you he finds it hard to understand that PRE would have concerns about the Compliance Report when most of the report came from the Quarterly Updates that PRE prepared. In order to respond to the concerns PRE has, he would like to have the following as soon as possible: 1) Who exactly is concerned at PRE and what specifically is their concern\n2) Quote the language that is a concern\n3) Explain in detail the basis for each concern. It would also be helpful if you have any information or documents which supports PRE's concerns. 10/20/2006Page 2 of 2 Brenda \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/18/2006 3:33 PM Chris, \u0026gt; PRE staff members have concerns about your statements on the following topics included in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court on Monday: 1) 2) 3) Karen school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. 10/20/2006Paragraph \u0026amp; Subject Comments on Compliance Report October 19, 2006 Comments 2. Compliance demonstrated by [updates \u0026amp; evaluation^ irocess (mentioned below). 5-8 Personnel independence. Only dept without administrative support. 7. Testing coordinators Errors Omits deeply embedded evaluation I Net loss of personnel since fall 04. On^its demotion of PRE \u0026amp; lack of ] ___________________________ Olds was 0.5 FTE. LRSD has had non\nFT from Aug 05 to Oct 06. 10. Deeply embedded assessmerjt process LRSD lessened PREs independence (reorganization) \u0026amp; its resources. LRSD violated policy by keeping much of PREs S* update \u0026amp; Dr. Dreyfus magnet 3 report from B/D. [ 11. Portfolios poi Q irtfolios. 12. Portfolios portfolios. [ 13. Portfolio content LRSD has not deeply embedded assessment process.___________ I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bemhardtb name omitted. There are no school I Any school portfolios? Dr. Bernhardt^ name omitted. There are no school ___________________I Portfolio design includes validated clijnate surveys, which LRSD stopped, and wellness data, which LRSD opposes. 14. Portfolio infrastructure 15. Janis Group 16. Election of BO which PRE reacted. [ 17. Data errors What infrastructure? What did it accomplish? This was not in-house. There was no debate, only a decision to removing/correcting, deleting, \u0026amp; protecting data. I What has been the error rate, \u0026amp; what ib it now? LRSD has no overall plan for Is there any evidence for claiming that errors have decreased?______________________________________________ [ 28. Essential research question [ Evaluators \u0026amp; PRE chose programs whjich were not district-wide. ] ] Evaluated | programs were not implemented in schools throughout the district. Evaluations were not readily understood by a lay person. _______________________________________________ I 34. Disclosure of evaluations \u0026amp; [approval of assessment process failed to enroll new policy in its official file of policies. I Although B/D approved the process, LRSD [ Exhibit A Exhibit B quality of neither LRSD data nor its use. Included tvidce Why so much about a matter not in th\u0026lt;\n2004 compliance remedy? BO affects theDRAFT Comments Re: Compliance Report of October 2006 October 19,2006 After review of the Compliance Report, submitted to the U.S. District Court on October 16, 2006 by LRSD, members of the PRE Department have the following comments. School portfolios 11. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. [p. 5] 12. School and district data portfolios are an important part of the infrastructure. [p. 6] 14. ... LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. [p 7] 16. ... to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse ... [p. 7] 16. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. [p. 7] PRE has no documents to support assertions about school portfolios. PRE produced only a single draft portfolio of the district in 2005 and anticipates a second in 2006. PRE has prepared no LRSD school portfolios and knows of none prepared by anyone else for any schools of the district. During the workshop attended by three PRE staff at EFE, conducted by Dr. Vicky Bernhardt in summer of 2005, they took part in exercises related to school portfolios then launched the first draft of a portfolio for LRSD with the help of Dr. Bernhardt and her staff at EFF. Dr. Bernhardt described school portfolios and their utility to principals and others during her visit to Little Rock, arranged by PRE as part of embedding assessment in e districts operations. However, in reply to a principals desire to send a school team to EFFs 2006 Summer Institute to learn more about developing a school portfolio. Dr. Roberts stated, in Dr. DeJamettes hearing, No, schools are not yet ready to begin portfolios. The data warehouse design and construction appears to be carried out for the district by an external contractor rather than in-house. PRE has not dissented from use and improvement of Business Objects software. PRE did not participate in the decision to use Business Objects products for the data warehouse. Rather, as part of its plan for deeply embedding assessment, begun in October 2004, PRE recommended TetraData, which develops data warehouses for school districts, edits old data incorporated into them, and interfaces with the variety of software programs in use. TetraDatas proposal gave summer of 2006 as an expected completion date. PRE did express its opinion that this seemed superior to the districts choice.Accuracy of LRSD data 17. The accuracy of the data in LRSDs database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. [p. 8] PRE knows of no evidence which would support this claim. On the contrary, external evaluators impressions are that errors encountered during 2005-2006 evaluations exceed those of the previous year. In her recent magnet report. Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus remarked, The academic achievement of students enrolled in the schools with embedded magnet programs could not be tracked in Year I because the available data are not consistent and appear umeliable. [Executive Summary, p. 2] Moreover, during the same week of this compliance reports submission, two LRSD departments discovered that their counts of the current years enrolled students differed by several hundred. PRE is aware of neither a district policy nor a district plan for comprehensively managing its data and ensuring their accuracy, integrity, and security. Consistent with this, no evidence has come to light of attempts by LRSD to quantify the accuracy of its data\nalthough recent action possibly involved them. Absent results of such efforts, verifying the above claim is very difficult. While evidence might exist to support the statement, PRE is unaware of any\nand updates submitted to ODM and Joshua included none. Readability of evaluations 28. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. [p. 12] PRE staff found the evaluation reports submitted in 2005 by CREP to be written on a professional level. During the reviews of these reports with the evaluation teams and the authors, PRE asked CREP to simplify their language. CREP revised the reports with the addition of nearly equally complex summaries inserted at their beginnings. The reports were not formally rated for their reading levels, so far as PRE knows\nthus, how readily they were understood by lay persons is not known.\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_368","title":"Comprehensive program assessment process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Comprehensive program assessment process"],"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/368"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJ . Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 22, 2004 Dr. Karen DeJamette, Director Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette\nThank you for sending us a copy of the revised regulation IL-R Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and for including us in some of the thinking that went into its preparation. Our observations and questions are listed below. The third paragraph on page 1 of the document uses the words spectrum and continuum of activities that review District programs and identifies summative (step 2?) evaluations as being at one end of the spectrum. The second sentence says that other activities in the continuum include formative evaluations, assessments, and snapshots. The following chart also lists these categories as apparent types of evaluations. Are these the only types of evaluations or are they representative of the activities included in the continuum? The processes described in the regulation apply to the summative (step 2) evaluations of the programs approved by the board in its annual program agenda. Are there procedures for other types of evaluations? Paragraph 3 of the procedures on page 3 obligates the district to summative (step 2) evaluations of all programs on the districts evaluation agenda. Is there a likelihood that less rigorous evaluations of programs on the agenda would be more appropriate at some point in the future? Or, is the evaluation agenda by definition concerned only with summative (step 2) evaluations? The directive in Subsection 1 of paragraph E (pg. 64) of the Compliance Remedy requires the district to include a special section in the evaluations which describes the number of teachers and administrators...who were interviewed or from whom information was received. Is this requirement included in the procedures? J it Page 2 pie Human Interaction standard for program evaluation is included in the chart on page of the regulation but is omitted from the definitions on page 1. Is this an oversight? Has the role of the associate superintendent for instruction in program evaluation been diminished or eliminated by the revised regulation? If so, why? Is the revised regulation IL-R to be presented to the LRSD Board for approval bv December 31, 2004 as required by the Courts Compliance Remedy? (Paragraph F 65) pg- These observations and questions are intended only to assist the district with meeting \u0026amp;e requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. Your responses to them may be in writing or in an informal conversation. ODM compliments you and the district on the quality of staff assembled at PRE. Please keep us informed as you proceed with your work. Sincerely, Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Gene Jones, Associate Monitor C: Dennis GlasgowCF !An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge November 12, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 1' 200* Dear Mr. Jones: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATiON idONITORlNG We are pleased to deliver the final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process required of LRSD by the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Perhaps it was not clear earlier when I proposed that we meet last week. The intention of our Plaiming, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation (PRE) department was a preliminary conversation with representatives of Joshua in which we were inviting you into decision-making with respect to selecting and conducting the eight step 2 evaluations that outside consultants are commencing this school year. We would still like to meetat your convenienceand anticipate useful conversations about fulfilling our responsibilities to the US District Court as well as to the students of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply with requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2' Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) nd Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots. As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports. 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews standard U1 Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness P1 Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility A1 Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data AIO Justified Conclusions Al 1 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations Informa! Assessments ++ 0 F ++ + + + 0 + Formative Assessments (Schoo! Portfolios) 0 + + Snapshots 0 0 + + + ++ ++ ++ -t-+ H- -H- -H- -H- ++ ++ -H- -l-l- ++ + + + \"o\" ++ ++ -H- + + + -H- + ++ V -H- + + v + + o\" T + + + V + ++ + + + + + T + + ++ V 0 + 0 + + IT ++ V + + v 0 + + + + + + + + + -H 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R 7. C. D. E. F. G. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines: 153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. II. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information\nA. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002). (( Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact\nEvaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH\nNational Staff Development Council. 46,123-124.) Approved\n[date] 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards. 2' Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: ,nd Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summatively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 8RECEIVED November 23, 2004 Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 DEC 1 6 2004 nror.n OFHCEOF desegregation LiONITOHING Dear Mr. Jones\nThank you for your careful review and comments regarding the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process delivered to you November 12. Responses to each point are below in the same order as in your letter.  The words spectrum and continuum are synonymous in that document, and the formative evaluations, assessments, and snapshots are examples of efforts over that range. They are not the only types of assessments or evaluations. While others might give the most rigorous such effort a name other than summative evaluation, it is the familiar term we have chosen. The comprehensive process we are introducing anticipates using these and additional examples to measure academic achievement (including disparities among groups) in practical, timely, and appropriately accurate ways according to circumstances and demands.  Summative (step 2) evaluations, the most rigorously designed and conducted, will address all the standards and follow all the procedures as much as possible. Other program appraisals will follow them less rigorously. The degree of fidelity to all the standards will depend on the time and resources permitted for them. There are not separate procedures (or standards) for various types of reviews.  The District will oversee eight summative evaluations, as required by the Court. Thereafter, the District will conduct the most appropriate types of evaluations, assessments, appraisals, reviews, or other similar activities of other names most apt to fit the Districts needs for this kind of information and its ability to do so. The full panoply will continue indefinitely as a permanent, imbedded activity of the District, but we anticipate practical trade-offs between the greater expense and longer time period, on one hand, usually required for summative evaluations, and limits of resources and time demanded for timely decisions based on data on the other hand  The first sentence of the revised regulation states that it complies with the Courts requirements. Thus, it encompasses all actions desired by the Court, including the number of LRSD employees who provide data for evaluations. The summary of the human interaction standard was combined with the summary of the standard for human rights, which precedes it in the table.  The Associate Superintendents is no longer responsible for program evaluation. Rather, the Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, who reports directly to the Superintendent, oversees the comprehensive program assessment process, as indicated in the current organizational chart found in an appendix of the update that is due December 1. The reason for the change is to give more independence to the assessment process.  The revised IL-R, entitled Comprehensive Program Assessment Process meets one of the Courts requirements. Accordingly, it was delivered to ODM and to Joshua a month prior to its presentation before the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. We appreciate your detailed attention to IL-R and hope these comments satisfactorily respond to your excellent questions. Please let us know if we may supply any more information or clarification. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201Jeanne P. Dreyfus 5118 Maytime Lane Culver City, CA 90230 (310) 559-9563 jpdrey@aol.com EDUCATION: 09/90 - 06/94 University of California, Los Angeles EdO - Curriculum Studies Received 09/88 - 06/90 University of California, Los Angeles MA \" Educational Psychology DEC 1 6 200^ 09/79-12/80 Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles CA Teaching Credential, K -12 DESEGREGAnOKMNirOflfNG 09/62 - 06/65 University of San Diego, CA BA \" Sociology/English EMPLOYMENT: 01/95 - Present Independent Evaluator - Education External Evaluator for the Teaching American History Project, Los Angeles Unified School District, Chern-Tech Program, L.A. Trade Tech Community College, Federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (8 years). Long Beach Unified School District\nthe Galef Institutes Capacity Building Grant and its Different Ways of Knowing Comprehensive School Reform program\nTechnology/Literacy Program\nTree Peoples Environmental Education Program 08/91 -12/94 Galef Institute, Los Angeles, CA Research and Evaluation Coordinator\nResearch Associate Designed/coordinated research \u0026amp; evaluation studies - included formulating budgets, supervising research assistants, designing research instruments, analyzing data, writing reports and presenting findings to school boards 07/89 - 07/91 Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate Student Researcher Collected and analyzed data and co-authored technical reports for U.S. Government Agencies and the Los Angeles Unified School District 09/71 - 06/89 SKILLS: Assistant Principal, Teacher Involved in the daily operation of a school including conducting faculty meetings and supervising the computer lab\nEnglish and U.S. History teacher Research and Evaluation: design studies and evaluation tools, collect/analyze data, supervise assistants, author evaluation reports and academic publications Administration: five years as an assistant principal Teaching: English and History - elementary, middle and senior high schools REFERENCES: Available upon requestJeanne P. Dreyfus, Ed.D. Jeanne Dreyfus is an independent evaluator of educational programs. Currently, she is the external evaluator for the Los Angeles Unified School District 6s Teaching American History grant. This three year program focuses on raising student achievement in U.S. History by providing teachers of at-risk children with quality professional development in innovative instruction and content. In addition, Dr. Dreyfus is in her third year as program evaluator for the High School Chemical Technology program at Los Angeles Trade Tech Community College. Working with at-risk students, she is part of a team which has created a program that provides participants with hands-on chemistry and industry based laboratories in areas such as forensics and waste water management. In addition, the program includes site-visits and career education and preparation. From 1995-2003, Dr. Dreyfus was the external evaluator for the federally-funded Magnet Schools Assistance Program for the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), a multi-year program dedicated to alleviating minority-group isolation in schools and raising student achievement. During that time she worked with 15 magnet schools at all grade levels providing school leaders with formative and summative input and evaluation. As the outside evaluator, she worked with the program director, principals, teachers, curriculum teams and site liaisons providing insights into the status of their magnet programs, their successes and challenges. Additionally, she was the external evaluator often LBUSD middle schools that participated in the California Technology Literacy Program, a program created to expand the use of technology across core curriculum. Dr. Dreyfus has also evaluated educational programs for TreePeople, a California non-profit environmental organization, the California State Parks Foundation, the National Park Service, the YWCA and Wilmington Community Health Clinic. From 2001-2003, Dr. Dreyfus acted as the third party formative evaluator to the Galef Institute under a Comprehensive School Reform Capacity Building Grant. In this work, she conducted educational research to help the Institute improve and expand their Different Ways of Knowing program which uses the arts to enhance core content learning. At that time, the Institute was working with low-achieving schools across the nation which were participating in the federal Comprehensive School Reform effort. In the early 199Os, Dr. Dreyfus was affiliated with the Galef Institute designing and coordinating research and evaluation studies, creating evaluation instruments, formulating and overseeing budgets, and presenting study findings to school boards and non-profit organizations. Dr. Dreyfus has a B.A. in Sociology and English from the University of San Diego, an M.A. in Educational Psychology and an Ed.D. from UCLA. Prior to receiving her advanced degrees, she taught Language Arts/Engiish, and History/Social Studies in elementary, middle and secondary schools for fifteen years and served as a K-8 assistant principal for five years. Dr. Dreyfus has extensive experience with diverse racial and ethnic groups and the realistic viewpoint of a former school administrator and classroom teacher. Over the years, she has conducted both qualitative and quantitative research, authored many program evaluations and provided significant on-going input into a number of multi-year educational programs.Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Argument This appeal is in the longstanding Little Rock school desegregation case, in which the parties' agreements have emphasized steps to address the lagging achievement of African American students. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d. 253, 256 (Sth Cir.1991). On April 10, 1998, the district court approved a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by the parties. Its duration was three years, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. On September 13, 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that LRSD had complied with all aspects of the Revised Plan challenged by Joshua Intervenors, except for Plan Sec. 2.7.1, concerning assessment of academic programs. LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1086 (E.D.Ark.2002). Based upon considerable evidence, the court construed Sec. 2,7.1 to require program evaluations of the key academic programs designed to build African American achievement. Id. at 1077-78. The court found that LRSD had not completed these evaluations and imposed a Sec. 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy. Id. at 1087-88. The LRSD did not appeal the Section rulings (fipdingg of fact, conclusions of law, or remedy). On appeal by Joshua Intervenors, this court affirmed the judgment as to issues raised unsuccessfully below by Intervenors. Armstrong. 359 F.3d 957 (Sth Cir.2004). LRSD V. LRSD appeals challenging: [i] the court's June 30, 2004 ruling that LRSD did not provide the evaluations required by the first Compliance Remedy [Add.3758] and [ii] the content of the revised Compliance Remedy, designed to secure the requisite evaluations. [Add.61-67] Oral argument is warranted. RECEIVED 1 DEC 1 6 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION I.iONlTORlNGTable of Contents Page No. Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Argument 1 Table of Contents ii Table of Authorities iv Statement of Issues 1 Procedural History 1 Statement of the Case 2 A. The Revised Plan of 1998 and Its Relevant Text 2 B. The LRSD's Recognition of the Ambiguity of the Term \"Assessment\" in the Context of The Revised Plan 4 C. The LRSD Repeatedly Interprets Plan Section 2.7.1 to Call for Program Evaluations of the Key Section 2.7 Programs 5 D. The LRSD Seeks in March 2001 a Declaration of Unitary Status and Its Release from Court Supervision 7 E. The Basis for the Court's Ruling in September 2002 of Non-compliance with Plan Section 2.7.1 Due to the Absence of Any Completed Program Evaluations 8 F. The District Court's Entry of a Compliance Remedy in September 2002 and the Lack of an Appeal by LRSD 12 G. Faced with the Court-ordered Compliance Remedy, the LRSD Again Fails to Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations, Resulting in the Court's Imposition on June 30, 2004 of a More Detailed Compliance Remedy 12 H. The Basis for the District Court's June 30, 2004 Ruling and Revised \"Compliance Remedy\" 13 Standard of Review 22 Summary of Argument 23 Argument 24 A. The District Court, Faced with a Second LRSD Failure to Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations, Has Sought, in a Manner Consistent with this Court's Guidance, to Provide Joshua Intervenors the Benefit of their 11 1 ISection 2.7.1 Bargain 25 1. The LRSD's Initial Failure to Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations and the court's First Compliance Remedy of Sept. 2002 26 2. The LRSD's Second failure to Provide the Program Evaluations and the Court's More Detailed Compliance Remedy of June 30, 2004 29 a. Introduction 29 b. The Basis for Imposing a Revised Compliance Remedy 30 c. The Dist. Court's Second Compliance Remedy 32 B. The LRSD Argument Ignores the Elements of the Governing Standards of Review and Is Otherwise Without Merit 33 1. The Assertion that the Term 'Assessment\" Is Unambiguous 34 2. The Request for De Novo Review of the Parties' Agreement 34 3. The Asserted \"Volunteering\" and Its Impact 35 4. The \"Importing\" of an Evaluation Obligation into the Plan 35 5. The Asserted Imposition of New Obligations 36 6. The Contention that LRSD Assessed Academic Programs 37 7. The Contention that LRSD Evaluated Academic Programs 38 8. LRSD's Argument Regarding the Burden of Proof and Contempt 39 Conclusion 41 Certification 42 Addendum After page 42 iiiTable of Authorities P^g-Np, Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) 22 Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8thCir.l991) 4, 25, 41 E.E.O.C. V. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72 (2ndCir.1999) 28 Foundation Telecommunications, Inc. v. Moe Studio, 16 S.W.3d 531 (Ark.2000) 34 Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App.1998) 35 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) 29 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir.l997) 35 LRSD V. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (Sth Cir.2004) 22, 36 LRSD V. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir.l996) 34 LRSD V. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir.1992) 1, 22, 29, 34 LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (SthCir. 990) 1, 13, 22, 25, 27, 37 LRSD V. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp. 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) passim Mears v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 91 F.3d 1118 (8thCir.l996) 27 Nash Finch Co. v. Rublioff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846 (8thCir.2003) 22 Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) 27 Sturgis v. Skokos, 977 S.W.2d 217 (Ark.1998) 35 Swann v. Charlotte-Meckelenberg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 23, 26 United States v. City of Miami, Fla., 664 F.2d 435 (5thCir.1981) 28 United States v. ITT 420 U.S. 233 (1975) :ontinental Baking Co., 34 iv -statement of Issues (1.) Whether the LRSD establishes any basis for a departure from the law of the case with regard to the relevant parts of the district court's September 2002 ruling (findings of fact, conclusions of law, Compliance Remedy), which it did not appeal? * Little Rock Sch, Dist, v, Pulaski County Special Sch. Pist.. 971 F.2d 160, 165 (SthCir.1992) (2.) Whether the LRSD establishes that any of the findings of fact in the June 30, 2004 ruling are clearly erroneous? * LRSD V. Armstrong. 359 F.3d 957, 963 (SthCir.2004) (3.) Whether in the light of the LRSD's second failure to provide any adequate program evaluations, the district court's second, more-detailed Compliance Remedy, designed to secure preparation of the requisite evaluations, was an abuse of discretion? LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (paras. 8-9) (SthCir. 1990) Procedural History This appeal is in the longstanding Little Rock school desegregation case. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376-83 (SthCir.1990) (history of case). On April 10, 1998, the district court approved a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan proposed by the parties. [J.Add.5,7] Its duration was three years, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. [Add.95 (Sec. 11)] On September 13, 2002, the district court held, in part, that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Revised Plan Sec. 2.7.1, concerning assessment of academic programs. LRSD v. PCSSD. 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1086 (E.D.Ark.2002). Based upon considerable 1I I I I evidence, including LRSD admissions, the court construed Sec. 2.7.1 to require program evaluations of the key academic programs designed to build African American achievement and implemented I I I pursuant to Plan Sec. 2.7. 1^. at 1077-78. The court found that LRSD had not prepared the requisite evaluations, refused to release the LRSD from court supervision regarding Plan Section 2.7.1, and imposed a Compliance Remedy to secure the promised evaluations and. thereby, substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1. Xd. at 1079-80, I 1087-88. The LRSD did not appeal the Section 2.7.1 rulings (findI ings of fact, conclusions of law, or remedy1. In March 2004, the LRSD again sought a release from court supervision, contending that it had substantially complied with the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy. [Add.3] Joshua Intervenors opposed the LRSD request\nthe court heard the matter in June 2004. [Add.3] I LRSD's appeal challenges: [i] the court's June 30, 2004 ruling that the LRSD did not provide the program evaluations required by the first Compliance Remedy [Add. 37-58] and [ii] the content of the revised Compliance Remedy, designed to secure the promised evaluations, thereby avoiding another LRSD default. [Add. 61-67]  Statement of the Case I I I A. The Revised Plan of 1998 and Its Relevant Text In 1998, the Joshua Intervenors^ and the Little Rock School See Add. 3, n.3 (\"The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District.\") 2District [LRSD], two of the parties in this case, agreed upon and submitted to the district court for approval. \"Revised a Desegregation and Education Plan.\" [Add.67\nAdd.72-95 (CX 871)] On April 10, 1998, the district court (then Hon. Susan Webber Wright) approved the Revised Plan, characterizing it as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement\" \"binding on the parties.\" [J.Add.3,5,7] While the Revised Plan in Section 9 provided for implementation through \"the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year\" [Add.94], Section 11 of the plan also addressed, implicitly. the duration of the Plan. That Section provides [Add.95, emphasis added]: At the conclusion of the 2001-02 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court year supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations orovided that -LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan, In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of UiSD's compliance with this Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party shallenqas LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. As can be seen from this text, the Revised Plan did not address, explicitly: [i] the duration of the Plan, if a party contested substantial compliance and prevailed on this challenge (as later occurred here regarding Section 2.7.1 of the Plan)\n[ii] the range of remedies available to the court in the event of non-compliance\nand [iii] allocation of the burden of later establishing compliance with any such remedy. See Add.36-37 (district court's discussion of \"Burden of Proof\"). 3Section 2 of the Revised Plan set forth a series of LRSD \"Obligations.\" [Add.73-78] Among these, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 read as follows [Add.76-77, emphasis added]: 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. These sections evidenced the parties' continuing recognition that attention to the lagging achievement of African-American students was an important part of the remedial process in the LRSD. See, for example, Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (SthCir.1991) . B. The LRSD's Recognition of the Ambiguity of the Term tt Assessment\" in the Context of The Revised Plan Various elements of the record establish the need to reach beyond the text of Section 2.7.1 to determine the obligation which the LRSD voluntarily assumed by agreeing to its terms. First. The term \"assessment\" is most often used to refer to the program of standardized testing of students imposed by state law or a school district's policy\nit is frequently used in this manner in Arkansas and the LRSD. 2 However, Section 2.7.1 addresses the \"assessment\" 2 See J.Add.24 (Tr., 11-19-01, at 243) (state-mandated system in Arkansas)\nCX 869 at 56-57 (LRSD Interim Compliance Report refers to the District's \"Assessment Plan, K-12\")\nCX 870 at 55-56 (LRSD Compliance Report discusses six tests under heading \"Assessments\")\nLRX 1 (memorandum regarding \"Revisions to the LRSD Assessment Plan\" deals with standardized tests). 4of programs. not students. Second. During the hearing in 2001 before Judge Wright on Joshua Intervenor's challenge to LRSD's compliance with certain features of the Revised Plan, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction testified that \"part of the confusion 11 in identifying the scope of Section 2.7.1. is due to the fact that \"we have sometimes used [the] terms [assessment and evaluation] interchangeably. . It [J.Add.24 (Tr.,11-19-01, 242)] Third. Later, in a memorandum discussing the requirements of the \"Compliance Remedy,\" imposed by Judge William Wilson on September 13, 2002, LRSD administrators referred back to the hearings conducted by Judge Wright in 2001. [LRX 2 at 3] LRSD staff wrote [id. 3]: \"The ambiguity of this term [\"assessment\"] was the subject of testimony at the hearing.\" C. The LRSD Repeatedly Interpreted Plan Section 2.7.1 to Call For Program Evaluations of the Key Section 2.7 Programs_ The record is clear that until Joshua Intervenors challenged compliance with Section 2.7.1, the LRSD repeatedly construed Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan to require program evaluations of programs implemented to fulfill the requirements of Section 2.7 of the Revised Plan. See Add. 76 (Sec. 2.7.1) and LR^, 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1078 (para. 10).] A summary of this evidence follows. (a) After approval of the Revised Plan, the LRSD formed a \"Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee\" consisting of the Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services, and the Special Assistant to the superintendent.\" [CX 869 at 1] \"The committee [had] responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review and revision 5of the compliance program. rid.1 The Committee developed a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" dated June 10, 1999. [CX 544] The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" [ id. at 12] The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provides as follows [id. at 11-12, emphasis added]: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver includes an evaluation design from State or District rules 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" (b) In a June 1999 position paper. on the LRSD's PreK-3 literacy program, staff wrote: Er.eK-3 Literacy_Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program gyaluatpr, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. [CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44\nemphasis added] See also J.Add.25 (Tr., 11-19-01, at 278) (Dr. Lesley) (\"[W]e noted the importance of a program evaluation, as a part of the commitment that we were making.\") (c) The LRSD's Interim Compliance Report of March 15, 2000 described steps said to be underway to comply with the Revised Plan. The material addressing Section 2.7,1 refers to If [i]mprove- 6I I I I rnents in the assessment of academic programs. II [CX 869 at 51] It also cites, inter alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [at 52], and \"[t]he 1999- 2000 program evaluation agenda . . . approved by the Board of I Education in August 1999.\" [At 53] In sum, there are repeated references to evaluations. (d) The LRSD submitted on March 12, 2001, \"Compliance a Report\" designed to provide a predicate for the district's release from court supervision. See CX 870 and Add. 95, para. 11. The material in this Report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\"  a title which is repeated at a later point in the I discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony before Judge Wright on August 1, \u0026gt; 2001, Assoc. Superintendent Lesley agreed that LRSD had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless I I raising the topic of program evaluation. [J.Add.19-21 (Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12)\nsee also J.Add.22-23 (Tr., 8-2-01, at 842- 43, 7-15) (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook . . obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\")] D. The LRSD Seeks in March 2001 a Declaration of Unitary Status and Its Release from Court Supervision_____ On March 15, 2001, acting pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan [Add. 95] , the LRSD filed the above-mentioned Compliance Report, as a predicate for a finding of unitary status and a termination of court jurisdiction. [CX 870] Thereafter, on 7June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an [0]pposition to [the LRSD's] Compliance Report. 11 [LRSD App. 38] The district court ultimately conducted hearings on 9 days, concerning Joshua Intervenors' contention that the LRSD had not substantially complied with certain sections of the Revised Plan, including Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1. Judge Wilson ruled on all issues 3 raised by Joshua Intervenors on September 13, 2002. 237 F.Supp. 2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002). The court held that Intervenors had failed to establish a lack of substantial compliance in each area addressed, with one exception, implementation of Plan Section 2.7.1. LESfi, 237 F.Supp. 2d 1086. The court set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, supporting its ruling, as well as a \"Compliance Remedy,\" geared to the specific problems identified in Section 2.7.1 compliance. LESD, 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1076-82, 1087-88. E. The Basis for the Court's Ruling in Sept. 2002 of Non- Compliance with Plan Section 2.7.1 Due to the Absence of Any Completed Program Evaluations_____________________ Based upon the hearing record. including the evidence summarized suora at 5-7, the district court made a series of findings showing the LRSD's lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as the LRSD had construed it. These findings, part of the law of the case, include the following: In Secs. 2.7 and 5.1 through 5.4 of the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD identified almost 100 programs that it had implemented to 'improve and remediate the academic Prior to her withdrawal from the case [LRSD App. 51], Judge Wright heard the matter on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001. [LRSD App. 38-39, 40, 49] Judge Wilson completed the hearings on July 22-25, 2002. [LRSD App. 61] 3 8achievement of African-American students.' At certain grade levels, it appears students were exposed to multiple programs aimed at improving their literacy and math skills. F.Supp. 2d at 1076 n. 135 (para. 3)] [237 Under Sec. 2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD discussed at length its plan for 'assessing' the programs implemented under Sec. 2.7. [footnote omitted] This plan consisted entirely of administering numerous tests to students in various grades levels and then comparing those tests scores with past test results to gauge how the programs were working to improve African-American achievement, [footnote omitted] see Interim Compliance report at 56-58. In addition to this 'Assessment Plan,' Sec. 2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that LRSD was preparing ^evaluations' on some key programs designed to improve African-American achievement, in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs. . . . See Interim Compliance report at 53-54. Thus in order to comply with its obligations under Sec. 2.7.1, LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the 'program evaluations' to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to Sec. 2.7\nand (b) to modify or eliminate those programs which the testing data and evaluations revealed were not effective in improving African- American achievement. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1076-77, para, emphasis in original] 3\n. . . . Dr. Lesley admitted that, even though Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan does not use the phrase 'program evaluation,' LRSD interpreted that section of the Revised Plan to include an obligation to perform program evaluations. Tr. August 1, 2001, at 706-07. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1077, para. 4] . . . . Thus, at least as early as March 15, 2000, LRSD went on record as recognizing that effective and timely written evaluations of the key programs implemented under Sec. 2.7 were essential in order for LRSD to accurately assess the effectiveness of those programs and to make the determinations required under Sec. 2.7.1 regarding whether the programs should be changed or eliminated.[237 F.Supp.2d atl078, para.6] During the hearings on unitary status, LRSD took the position that Sec. 2.7.1 only obligated it to perform 'assessments' and that it was not required to perform aCY program 'evaluations.' Dr. Lesley testified that preparing program evaluations was ' very expensive.'Tr. November 20, 2001, at 339. Based upon the amount of time, effort, and money 9that LRSD expended on preparing program evaluations.an\u0026lt;3 its efforts to document the preparation__ofthoseprogram evaluations in both the Interim and Final Compliance reports the record is clear that LRSD viewed those program evaluations as an integral part of the assessment process describee^, -in [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1078, para. 10\nemphasis Section 2.7.1. added in part] I I I I . I find that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part of LRSD's obligation under Sec. 2.7.1. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1079, para. 13]  \u0026gt; In February of 2001, only one month before March 15, 2001 deadline for filing LRSD's Final Compliance Report, the Board enacted Policy IL (evaluation of instructional programs). [footnote 138: 'To the extent that LRSD was required to prepare evaluations on various programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students as part of its obligation under Sec. 2.7.1, it was a little late in the day for the Board to be getting around to enacting a policy on how those evaluations should be prepared.\"[Policy IL recognized the crucial importance of program evaluations in providing '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.' [CX 719] [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1078, para. 7] 'more . . . . Dr- Lesley defined a 'program evaluation' as long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report. Tr. November 19, 2001, at 242-43. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1077, para. 4] . . . .Dr. Lesley testified that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. Tr. August 1, 2001, at 710. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1077, para. 5] The evidence introduced during the unitary status as of March 15, hearings overwhelmingly established that, 2001, the date the Final Compliance report was filed with the court: (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had 10been approved by the Board\n(3) in the fall of 2000, LRSD presented the Board with evaluations of the Pre-K-3 Literacy Program, the National Foundation Project, and the implementation of the middle school curriculum, but the Board LRSD tabled approval of each of those evaluations because of serious problems with their form and content\nand (4) february of 2001, only a few weeks before the deadline for in filing the Final Compliance Report, LRSD formed a new research Committee and charged it with the responsibility of preparing and finalizing the evaluations on at least some of the programs listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Final compliance Report's discussion of 'Program Evaluations\" 148 fails to disclose anv of the Compliance of on page any of foregoing facts. 'When one has to eat crow, one should take big bites.' it would have been far better for LRSD to candidly set forth in the Final Compliance Report that it had dropped the ball in preparing the program evaluations outlined in the Interim Compliance report, rather than presenting a misleading picture of the actual status of those program evaluations. [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1079-80, para. 15\nemphasis added in part] After discovering the serious problems with LRSD's incomplete and inadequate draft evaluations. Dr. Lesley sent several e-mails to other top administrators making it quite clear that LRSD had failed to carry out its obligation to prepare timely and reliable evaluations to assist in determining the effectiveness of the key remediation programs implemented by LRSD to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. para. 16] . . [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1080, These findings may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2.7.1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key Section 2.7 programs, which by the text of that Section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [ii] The School Board adopted a policy on evaluation belatedly, i,e^, in February 2001, only in the month before it filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations, [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by 11a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations\nnone were complete. [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key Section 2.7 programs, URSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. F. The District Court's Entry of a Compliance Remedy in September 2002 and the Lack of An Appeal by the LRSD In response to the default of the LRSD regarding Section 2.7.1, the district court set forth in its September 13, 2002 ruling a \"Compliance Remedy.\" 237 F.Supp 2d at 1087-88. The LRSD did not file an appeal or cross appeal challenging any aspect of the Compliance Remedy, a point noted in the district court's subsequent decision of June 30, 2004 from which this appeal is taken. [Add. 55] The lower court also observed there that \"LRSD did not seek clarification of any terms used in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations.\" [Add. 9] G. Faced with the Court-ordered Compliance Remedy, the LRSD Again Fails to Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations Resulting in the Court's Imposition on June 30, 2004 of a More Detailed Compliance Remedy The Compliance Remedy established a series of steps necessary to fulfill the requirements of Section 2.7.1. As authorized by Paragraph F of the Remedy, the LRSD filed on March 12, 2004 a \"Compliance Report\" maintaining that it had substantially complied with the \"Compliance Remedy,\" warranting a release from court supervision. [Add. 19] Thereafter, on April 15, 2004, the Joshua Intervenors opposed LRSD's request. [App. 29\nsee also Add. 29-32 {district court's summary of Intervenors' objections)] 12The district court heard the matter on June 14-15, 2004. The LRSD presented witnesses, who were cross-examined [Add. 35], and the court received each parties' exhibits.\" Intervenors' exhibits included an office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report of March 30, 2004, titled \"The [LRSD's] Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy. II [JX 11] The report addresses relevant staffing in the LRSD, as well as ODM discussions with LRSD officials concerning their efforts (or lack thereof) during the period in which LRSD was to implement the initial compliance Remedy. [JX 11 at 2-3, 5-6, 16, 23] (This court directed the creation of ODM. IRSD, 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394.) On June 15, 2004, at the close of the LRSD's evidence, the district court granted, in part, the Joshua Intervenors' motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 52(c), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. [Add. 35] The court granted the motion as to Parts A and B of the Compliance Remedy, but not Part C. [1^. ] On June 30, 2004, the court filed a 69-page Memorandum Opinion. In substance, the court concluded in detailed findings that in the face of the \"Compliance Remedy,\" the LRSD had again defaulted. The court therefore restated the \"Compliance Remedy\" in more detailed terms. [Add. 61-67] H. The Basis for the District Court's June 30, 2004 Ruling and Revised \"Compliance Remedy\"------- A summary of the district court's June 30, 2004 findings of fact and conclusions of law follows. A footnote at the end of each \" Intervenors' witnesses did not testify due to the court's granting Intervenors' motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., after the LRSD rested. [Add. 35\nTr. at 297-304] 13paragraph sets forth support in the record for the court's ruling. On October 10, 2002, Board\") adopted a \"Compliance Plan LRSD's Board of Directors (\"the It that was specifically designed to satisfy the Court's Compliance Remedy. . Compliance Plan recognized that, in order for LRSD to meet its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, it would have to satisfy three core obligations: (1) 'develop a written procedure for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Sec. academic 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African-American students\"\n(2) 'maintain written records of the criteria used to evaluate each [sec. 2.7] program\"\nand f3]'fplrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program__Linpl emen ted pursuant to . . . Sec. 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.\" Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). [Add. 11-12\n54] . The \u0026amp; The Compliance Plan also included a detailed 'Action Plan Time Line' that: (1) identified the LRSD employees who were responsible for implementing each 'activity' necessary to satisfy the Compliance Remedy\nand (2) provided a schedule for completing each of these activities. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, and Dr. Ken James, LRSD's Superintendent of Schools, were assigned personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified by the \"Action Plan Time Line.\" Id. at 7-10. Thus, it was up to Dr. Lesley and Dr. James to spearhead the timely implementation of all twenty-eight activities' necessary to satisfy the Compliance remedy. [Add. 12] Finally, at the same time it approved the compliance Plan, the Board also adopted Regulation 'IL-Rl,' which set forth 'the written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented effectiveness pursuant to in African-American improving students.' Sec. r the 2.7 to academic determine achievement their According to of the Compliance Plan, regulation Il-Rl established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSD's obligations under subparts an of the Compliance A B 5 See J.Add.11-13 (\"[Final] Compliance Plan\"). 6 See J.Add. 15-18\nTr. at 116-18 (Lesley). 14Remedy.[Add. 12-13] the Board approved a 'Program On October 24, 2002, tii= i-t---- - ---=\u0026gt;--- Evaluation Agenda' for the 2002-03 school year that authorized  n . j J 2  X. V. .M. o A ** *\u0026gt; V* A e*  t T 1 On October 2 4, the preparation of evaluations in (1) Elementary literacy\n(2) Secondary literacy\nand (3) the National Science Foundation ('NSF') K-12 Math and Science Elementary literacy\nthree broad areas\nProject, [citations to record] LRSD subsequently construed the 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda as requiring it to prepare only two Sec. 2.7.1 evaluations in order to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy: comprehensive 'Literacy Evaluation\"\nand (2) a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation.\"[Add. 13\nsee also at Add. 23-24 (1) a (identifying the two \"evaluations\" submitted)] Of course 'Literacy' and 'Math and Science' are not  they are broad academic areas that roughly tn the orouDino of collecie courses into 'Arts' or 'programs'  correspond to grouping college   'Sciences.' Because LRSD administrators, such as Dr. Lesley, had always construed Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as 2.7.1 requiring LRSD to prepare evaluations of the key Sec. programs implemented to improve African-American achievement, the Board should have been aware that they were being too general in dividing the universe into 'Literacy' and 'Math/Science' and then preparing a global evaluation of each of those areas. Nevertheless, in its March 12, 2004 Compliance in 'Literacy' Report . . . , LRSD contends that these two Sec. 2.7.1 evaluations fully satisfy all of its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, [footnote omitted] [Add.13-14\n55 The district court found, as detailed in the ODM report and  See JX 2 (Reg. IL-Rl)\nJ.Add. 12. Also noteworthy are the following: [i] JX 1 (LRSD evaluation policy states: \"All program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation.\")\n[ii] LRSD's Proposed Compliance Plan states: \"Proposed Reg. IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years.\" See LRX 14 at 3-4\nLRX 3 at 3-4\nJX 11 at 4. See evidence discussed supra at 5-7\nCX 870 at 148 (planned evaluations of parts of the curriculum)\nJ.Add.11 (para.4) (Compliance Plan refers to preparing evaluation of \"each [Sec. 2.7] program\")\nTr. at 195 (Ross) (\"every school and every district has many subprograms\" which can be and should be evaluated)\nLRX 14 at 3-4. 15I   I I I I the testimony, that the problem of inadequate staffing persisted. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Ken James, whom the \"time line\" in the Compliance Plan identified as having \"personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified\" as necessary \"to satisfy the Compliance Remedy,\" resigned in March and May, 2003, respectively. [Add. 12, 17] The district court found that no document identified a successor. [Add. 18-19] The court noted that the LRSD originally envisioned its Department of planning, Research, and Evaluation ('PRE') preparing evaluations. [Add. 17 n. 17] The court found that after the Assistant superintendent in charge of PRE resigned \"in early 2001,\" she was not replaced until a \"statistician\" was designated \"acting head\" in November 2003. [Id.] \"As a result, since Dr. Lease's departure in early 2001, LRSD has essentially functioned without a meaningful Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. See ODM's Compliance Report [JX 11] at 6. If [Id\nsee also Add. 39-40 (paras. 6-7)] lO LRSD Regulation IL-Rl contained the following procedures that were to be followed in preparing all future Sec. 2.7.1 evaluations [Add. 21]: (1) Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. [Add. 22] (2) Agree on the necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question: 'Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and lO 269 (Glasgow). Tr. at 116-18 (Dr. Lesley)\nJX 11 at 2-3, 5-6, 16\nTr. at 11 The LRSD policy on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" . . program evaluations can provide valuable states in part: \" insights into how programs are operating . . .\" [JX 1] 16remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?' [Add. 22] . . . . (4) Plan ways to provide regular progress reports fe.q.. dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to Superintendent, Cabinet and\\or Compliance Team) to stakeholder, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, The Superintendent of Schools, the ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved) and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). [Add. 22] (5) The team preparing the program evaluations had to meet 'to monitor the completion of assignments'\n'to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer'\nand to 'formulate recommendations . . . for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement.' [Add. 22-23] . . 12 The district court's summary of the ODM report on compliance included the following content: (2) The ODM had difficulty getting LRSD administrators to identify the specific Sec. evaluated under Sec. 2.7.1 2.7 of programs the Revised that would be Plan. administrators finally acknowledged to the ODM that LRSD 'the program evaluation agenda for the 2002-03 school year would include only elementary literacy, secondary literacy, and the NSF math and science project.' LRSD administrators never explained to the ODM which Sec. 2.7 programs would be covered in the literacy and math science evaluations. 1^. at 12. [Add. 24-25] 13 While developing its Compliance Plan, the LRSD prepared a proposed regulation, I1-R2. \"'Proposed Regulation IL-R2' was 12 See JX 2. 13 JX 11 at 23. On this topic, ODM wrote: \"Over the course of our monitoring, we have repeatedly asked district employees which programs the district viewed as subject to the program assessment requirement. For the most part, responses have been evasive, but in January 2004, an ODM monitor again asked a senior-level administrator if the district had ever identified the programs subject to the assessment requirement. additional comment.\" Id. His reply was 'no,' without 17intended to govern the preparation and content of ' Informal program Evaluation.' The stated purpose of this regulation was 'to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program.' [citations omitted] / II [Add. 33] \"Proposed Regulation IL-R2 clearly was intended to meet certain of the obligations imposed on LRSD under subpart B of the Compliance Remedy. LED, 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1087-88.\" [Add. 34] The School Board failed to adopt Regulation I1-R2. rid.1 The district court found that \"LRSD'S Literacy Program Evaluation fails to substantially comply with subparts A and B of the Compliance remedy\" due to many \"significant deficiencies.\" [Add 42-45] [i] It did \"not evaluate each Sec. 2.7 academic program\" \"much less analyze 'whether to modify or replace' any of those programs.\" [Add. 42-43] [ii] The \"research question[s]\" addressed did not include the key question identified as necessary in LRSD's Regulation IL-Rl, \"based on: 'Policy IL, Sec. 2.7.1 of the [Revised Plan] and Judge Wilson's Compliance remedy.\" [Add. 43] [iii] It did not satisfy the fundamental requirement of Regulation IL-Rl that there be \"a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule for its implementation.\" [Add. 43] The descriptions of the middle school and high school programs were particularly deficient. [Add. 44] The court noted the concession of LRSD expert Dr. Ross that X4 LRX 2 at 6\nJ.Add. 12-13 (\"[Final] Compliance Plan\"]). 18these program descriptions were \"amorphous.\" [Add 44] 15 [iv] The court also wrote: \"During the evidentiary hearing, the testimony established that LRSD failed to provide the ODM and Joshua with any 'progress reports' on the Literacy Program Evaluation as required 16 by Regulation IL-Rl.\" [Add. 45] The district court found that the \"LRSD's Math and Science Evaluation also falls short of substantial compliance with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy.\" [Add. 45] \"[MJore obvious deficiencies\" include: \"In violation of its own Compliance Plan, LRSD prepared a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation that examined 'areas of knowledge'  not specific Sec. 2.7 programs.\" [Add. 46] Furthermore, the document does not address modification or replacement of programs. [IXJ. ] The evaluation covers curriculum chances made to LRSD's math and science programs  not the specific Sec. 2.7 programs that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science. II [Add. 47] The evaluation, as conceded by an LRSD witness, was II primarily an analysis of test scores.\" [Add. 47-48] Moreover, the evaluation included an unsound analysis of test 15 Dr. Ross earlier prepared \"guidelines\" for LRSD emphasizing the importance of program descriptions. [LRX 8 at 2, 3, 4] 16 Compare LRX 14F at 8 (Exhs. 2195) (research questions focus on analysis of student test scores) with Tr. at 195 (Dr. Ross testifies that every district and school had sub-programs which can be and should be evaluated)\ncompare JX 2 at 5 (para. D) with LRX 14F at 8 (Exhs. 2195) (key research question omitted)\ncompare JX 2 at 3 (clear description of program needed) with LRX 14F at 10-11 (Exhs. 2197-98) (little or no description of programs)\nTr. at 192 (\"amorphous\" program descriptions)\nTr. at 197-98 and 279-80 (lack of progress reports). 19scores. [Add. 49-50] The evaluation did not address implementation of the program at each school. [Add 48] \"[T]he LRSD failed to provide regular 'progress reports' on the Math and Science Evaluation to the ODM and Joshua, as required by Regulation IL-Rl.\" [Add. 50]\" The LRSD's witness. Dr. Ross, testified that it is now necessary to \"perform program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the specific Sec. 2.7 literacy programs as they have been implemented at each of the schools in the district in order to fulfill the purposes of Section 2.7.1. [Add. 50-51] The LRSD's witness, Mr. Glasgow, the Interim Superintendent of Curriculum and Curriculum, \"testified that the single best way to improve the academic achievement of African-American students was to evaluate, on a school-by-school basis. the effectiveness of specific Sec. 2.7 programs, as they have been implemented at the classroom level. II [Add. 53] la At the hearing, the LRSD again argued, by the testimony of Dr. Lesley, whose credibility the district court faulted [Add.54], that to satisfy Section 2.7.1 the district was \"required to perform only annual informal assessments.\" [Add. 52 emphasis in original]. The district court noted the testimony of LRSD witness Dr. Ross, 2236-2354) (math-science \" See generally LRX 14G (Exhs. evaluation)\nTr. at 241 (primarily a test score analysis)\nTr. at 244-47 (unsound anlysis of test scores)\nTr. at 240-43 (lack of data on implementation at each school)\nTr. at 197-98 and^279-80 (lack of progress reports)\nTr. 241-43 (evaluation deficient in light of standards articulated by Dr. Ross in LRX 5). xa Tr. at 195 (Dr. Ross)\nTr. at 273-74 (Glasgow). 20Id rejecting the adequacy of such informal steps. [Add.52-53] Dr. Ross testified that a district the size of the LRSD could reasonably be expected to perform four or five program evaluations of individual programs. [Add. 56] The district court found Dr. Ross to be It well-qualified expert in preparing program evaluations a [and a person with] extensive knowledge about programs and strategies that schools can implement to improve the academic achievement of African American students.\" [Add. 53] The court \"further [found] Dr. Ross's testimony was both informative and credible regarding the Literacy Evaluation that he prepared.\" [Id-] \"Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each Sec. 2.7 program. These written records were required to include the following: (a) the criteria that LRSD used to assess each Sec. 2.7 program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\nand (b) the 'results of the annual assessment of each program. including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or elimination of any programs.' 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1088. Proposed Regulation IL-R2, which was never approved by the Board, appears to have been designed to satisfy the requirements of subpart B of the Compliance Remedy.\" [Add.56-57, emphasis in original] 21 \"The evidence established that LRSD failed to maintain any of Id Tr. at 151-55 (Dr. Lesley)\nTr. at 177, 203 (Dr. Ross). 20 Tr. at 158-59, 210. 21 LRX 2 at 6\nJ.Add. 12-13. 21the separate written records on each of the Sec. 2.7 programs that were required by subpart B of the 1 attached to its Compliance Report Compliance remedy. Instead, three documents that LRSD contain a confusing compilation of random changes in various described academic vaguely programs during the 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003- 04 school years, [citations omitted]\" The district court described additional shortcomings in this area. [Add.57-58] The district court concluded that the LRSD complied with Subpart C of the substantially Compliance Remedy. [Add. 58-61] Standard of Review The LRSD having failed to seek the court's rulings of September 13, reconsideration of or to appeal 2002, regarding Section 2.7.1 of the Plan, those rulings are the law of the showing of clear case, absent \"a error and manifest injustice\" subsequent change in the facts of the or a substantial. case. LRSD v. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160, 165 (Sth Cir. 1992). In XB.SD V. Armstrong J court wrote: 359 F.3d 957, 963 (Sth Cir. 2004), this We review the District Court' error. See Nash Finch Co. F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. V ^^ndings of fact for clear I Rublioff Hastings. L.L.C r.OU 04b, 850 (Sth Cir. 2003). Thus, we must 2^ findings are, in our opinion, clea^ir that we must have a 'definite n H f 4 \u0026gt; District Court a was permissible views of the between them cannot be Anderson v. defini-i-o a /I erroneous, which means definite and firm conviction' mistaken. Ibid. If 'there \u0026gt; evidence. that the If 'there are two factfinder's choice clearly erroneous.' 14. at 851 (quoting ------ 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). Xisid. City of Bessemer City. The district court' review by the abuse of discretion s second Compliance Remedy is subject to standard. LRSD PCSSD. supra. 23 LRX 14C-E (Exhs.2174-86). 22 921 r.2d at 1394, paras. 8-9\ncompare Swann v. Charlotte-HecRlen- hfirg Board of Educ. . 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971) (remedial authority of federal district court when local school authority defaults) . Summary of Argument The LRSD has twice failed to provide any adequate program evaluations of its key programs designed to build African-American achievement, despite its voluntary promise to do so in Plan Section 2.7.1. Its appeal challenges the court's second, more-detailed Compliance Remedy, designed to prevent a third such default. LRSD pledged not only to implement programs \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students .\" (Sec. 2.7), but also \"assessment\" of the Sec. 2.7 programs after each year for effectiveness. allowing informed decisions about the need for modification and program replacement (Sec. 2.7.1). When Intervenors challenged LRSD's compliance, the evidence revealed the ambiguity of the term \"assessment.\" Based upon consid- erable evidence. including LRSD admissions, the district court construed Sec. 2.7.1 to require program evaluations of the key academic programs designed to build African American achievement. Drawing upon its residual authority in the absence of relevant provisions in the parties' plan (LESE, 921 F.2d at 1394 [paras. 8- 9]), the court set forth a Compliance Remedy to secure the requisite evaluations and cure other deficiencies in LRSD's performance. LRSD did not appeal. In 2004, when LRSD sought release from court supervision. Intervenors contended that LRSD had not adequately implemented the 23Compliance Remedy and again failed to provide the requisite program evaluations. The court agreed, in detailed findings and rulings which LRSD essentially ignores. The court found again that LRSD had construed its obligation to encompass preparation of program evaluations, not the less rigorous study it proffered as adequate at the hearing. The lower court, as noted, set forth a revised more detailed Compliance Remedy. LRSD's arguments also ignore the governing standards of review. In particular, LRSD ignores the import, under the law of the case doctrine, of its failure to appeal from those parts of the lower court's Sept. 13, 2002 decision concerning failure to implement Plan Sec. 2.7.1 (findings, conclusions. Compliance Remedy). LRSD, 971 F.2d at 165. Generally, LRSD's arguments lack substance, when viewed in the light of the court's findings and the record. Argument In keeping with the parties' historic emphasis in this case. the LRSD promised in Plan Section 2.7.1 to undertake a program evaluation of each key Section 2.7 program to judge effectiveness in building African American achievement and to identify any needed program changes. The first Compliance Remedy rested on LRSD's default in this regard\nLRSD did not appeal. The second, more detailed Compliance Remedy rests on well-supported findings that LRSD again defaulted and failed to fulfill this vitally important pledge. The district judge need not allow the LRSD to outlast him. The LRSD, in substance, seeks a de novo review. LRSD errs. Pursuant to each element of the applicable standard of review, the 24I ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft proper focus is wrong. whether the district court's As LRSD did not appeal from or action is clearly otherwise challenge the relevant findings, conclusions, and remedy set forth on September 13, 2002, they are the law of the case, absent a showing which LRSD does not undertake. The district court's must be accepted if they rest evidence.\" LRSD must abuse of discretion. on June 2004 findings of fact \"permissible [view] of the show that the second \"Compliance Remedy\" is an This argument first shows that the court, faced with a second LRSD failure to provide the promised program evaluations. has sought, in an appropriate manner, to benefit of their Section 2.7.1 bargain. provide Intervenors the Intervenors then address a particular flaws in the LRSD argument. \u0026gt; A. The District Court, Faced With A Second LRSD Failure to^ Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations, Has Sought, in a Manner Consistent with this Court's Guidance, to Provide Intervenors the Benefit of Their gectjon 2.7.1 Bargain The quest for \"the equal and integrated education of black children\" in the LRSD (LESfi, 921 F.2d at 1380) has been governed by agreements of the parties since 1990. The parties have emphasized steps to address the lagging achievement of African American students. The district court recognized the relationship and the 33 importance of Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 of the \"Revised Desegregation \u0026gt; and Education\" Plan. [Add.4,68] The LRSD pledged not only to At an earlier time, when LRSD pledged actions to reduce the this court cited \"the agreed effort to racial achievement gap, eliminate achievement disparity between the races\" elements of the . . . plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). as one of \"those . . plan that Appeal of LRSD. 25 23implement programs \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students . . It [2.7], but also to study the Section 2.7 programs after each year for effectiveness, allowing informed decisions about the need for modification and program replacement [2.7.1] 1. The LRSD's Initial Failure to Provide the Requisite Program Evaluations and the Court's First Compjli9ng$ ReiPgcb: When Intervenors opposed release of court jurisdiction as to Section 2.7.1, addressing this core educational concern, the court in September 2002 found (and ruled), based upon considerable evidence, including an admission by Dr. Lesley, that the \"assessment\" of \"academic programs \" to which Section 2.7.1 referred envisioned \"program evaluations\" \"of the key programs implemented under Sec. 2.7 . . .\" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1078- As noted, Dr. Lesley also testified to a tendency to use the terms \"assessment\" and \"evalauation\" interchangeably. 24 The court found that the LRSD had prepared only draft, unapproved evaluations \"of some of the programs in guestion\"  a fact which the LRSD had not disclosed in its Compliance Report. 237 F.Supp. at 1079-80. The court also found that the School Board adopted a policy on evaluation belatedly and, in any event, noted Dr. Lesley's acknowledgement of a lack of the staff necessary to do evaluations. 237 F.Supp. at 1077-78. Viewed objectively, the court determined that in this sphere, the LRSD had \"defaulted\" (compare Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg, supra 401 U.S. at 15-16), and then sought to mask this fact by advancing a diluted 24 See supra at 4-5 (need to reach beyond Section 2.7.1 text to construe word \"assessment\" as used there). 26version of its obligation at the hearing. 237 F.Supp. at 1078. The parties' plan indicated, implicitly, that the implementation period could be extended, if Intervenors' demonstrated a lack of substantial compliance. \"[C]ontract terms are interpreted with strong consideration for what is reasonable.\" Mears__3L Nationwide Mutual Insur. Co.. 91 F.3d 1118, 1122 (8thCir.1996). It would be senseless to allow the challenge on which Intervenors succeeded, if no substantive relief followed. On the other hand, the parties' agreement did not address the content or duration of a compliance remedy, or which party would have the burden of later establishing compliance (or a lack thereof). Supra at 3-4. In this setting, the court followed guidance from this court in this case in 1990 and kindred precedent. In 1990, also in the context of an agreed upon plan, this court addressed the district court's responsibilities regarding compliance with the agreements. This court \"instructed\" the district court \"to take whatever action is appropriate. in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the agreements and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d at 1394 (para. 8). This court added that should the parties be unable to agree upon a transition from operation under court order to their agreements \"the District Court is authorized to take such action as may be just.\" Id. at para. 9. 3S 25 See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk Cty. Jail. 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is 27I I I I I ) ) )   I I I I The district court's action following LRSD's initial default mirrors precisely this court's 1990 road map. In brief, the first \"Compliance Remedy\" (237 F.Supp. 2d at 1087-88) is designed \"to ensure compliance with [Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan]\" as construed by the court (based upon its text and the LRSD's acknowledgement of its obligations). A key provision of the first \"Compliance Remedy\" provides: to . . [LRSD] must remain under court supervision with regard [Section 2.7.1] of the Revised Plan mtil it Xal demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that an accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n. . . [237 F.Supp. 2d at 1087, emphasis added] This language portends the court's later decision placing on the LRSD the burden of proof on the issue of compliance with the first \"Compliance Remedy.\" [LRSD App. 100-01 (hearing on 4-22-04)] On burden, the lower court \"proceed[ed] as the law and the facts require\" and in a manner which was \"just.\" The parties' agreement did not address the burden issue in the context of a Compliance Remedy. The court chose to allocate the burden as is normal in a desegregation setting, as its citation to precedent shows. [Add.36-37] This placed the burden on the party (LRSD) which created the need for the additional proceeding by its default. It is also germane that the LRSD was best positioned to have the information demonstrating compliance (if any there was). Compare subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\")\nE,E.0.C v. New York Times Co. . 196 F.3d 72, 79 (2ndCir. 1999) (\". . . courts have equitable powers to enforce consent decrees . . .\")\nU.S, v. City of Miami. Fla.. 664 F.2d 435, 440 n.8 (Sthcir.1981) (en banc) (opinion for five judges). V. Miami, Fla. 28Kg-Ve^-V-.-. school Dist. No. 1. 413 U.S. 189, 209-10 (1973) (role of considerations of policy and fairness in allocating burden of proof). As noted, the LRSD did not appeal from the court's ruling. It did not cross appeal, after the appeal by Intervenors. The district court's findings, conclusions, and remedy thereby became a part of the law of the case. LRSD, 971 F.2d at 165. Moreover, the LRSD did not, as the district court noted, seek reconsideration or clarification of any aspect of the September 2002 decision. [Add.9] 2. LRSD's Second Failure to Provide the Program Evaluations and the court's Second More Detailed Compliance Remedy a. Introduction The court's detailed findings of fact establish that faced with the Compliance Remedy the LRSD again defaulted. The district court responded appropriately and justly, namely, with a more specific remedy designed to give class members the benefit of the vitally important Section 2.7.1 bargain (evaluations of key programs) and to minimize the possibility of a third default. In describing LRSD's remedial obligation in the first \"Compliance Remedy,\" the district court employed the words \"assess\" and \"assessments\" not evaluate or evaluation. 237 F.Supp. 2d at 1987-88. The court determined to use the words used by the parties, which LRSD understood to encompass program evaluations. [Add.8] The court's June 2004 findings show that the LRSD understood its obligation under the Compliance Remedy. First, in its \"Compliance Plan\" adopted on October 10, 2002, LRSD recognized that it was obligated [i] to develop a written 29procedure to evaluate the Sec. 2.7 programs, [ii] to maintain written records of the criteria used for these evaluations. and [iii] to (3)Ifplrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each agademiccrograinimplemented pursuant to . . Sec. to 2^ determine its pffectivengss in improving the academic achievement a Africsn-Aweripan students and to decide whether to notify or fgplacs 'Vhs prpgraro.\" Jd. at 3-5 (emphasis added). [Add.11-12\nalso Add.5 and J.Add.11-13] see Second, the written procedure developed by the LRSD is set forth in its Regulation IL-Rl, also adopted on October 10, 2002. [JX 2] The court found: \"According to the Compliance Plan, Regulation Il-Rl established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSD's obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy.\" [Add.12-13] Basis for Imposing a Revised Compliance Remedy The district court's articulation of a predicate for imposing a second Compliance Remedy is by no means limited to showing that at the outset LRSD recognized its obligation. Personnel problems persisted and LRSD again sought in the hearing to dilute its obligation. Supra at 15, 20. in the latter regard, the court noted that Dr. Ross specifically rejected as inadequate the tact on which LRSD relied (\"annual informal assessments\"). Supra at 20. LRSD staff could not articulate for ODM staff the programs subject to assessment. S.Upra at 17. LRSD did not provide Intervenors promised progress reports. [Tr. 197-98, 279-80] The court rejected the notion that LRSD had fulfilled its 30I I I \u0026gt;    obligation II by providing for only \"global evaluation[s]\" of Literacy\" and \"math/science.\" [Add.13-14] While some LSD witnesses argued that the system had only a area, single uniform program in each and could not do more [Tr. debunked this notion. at 87-88, 253-54], Dr. Ross [Tr. at 195] Dr. Ross also made it clear that LSD could comply. Individual programs could be identified\nLSD should be able to so undertake multiple evaluations each year\ndoing would be valuable. [Tr. 195, 198, 210-11] The court These found multiple shortcomings in each \"evaluation. included in each case program evaluated and in the schools, professional an inadequate description of the lack of information on actual implementation areas recognized as important by LSD and the standards which LSD voluntarily chose to draw upon. Supra at 18-19, 19-20. In the absence of such data. possible to attribute any progress it is not made to the program, or to judge whether better implementation in one or more schools would yield more progress . Also noteworthy is that under Section 2.7.1, possible result of the required study program is implemented. . . .\" [Add. 77] was 2fi one \"modifying how the Earlier, Dr. Ross prepared for the LSD guidelines for use in completing the \"Page 148 evaluations.\" See LRX 5 and Add. 15-17 (describing these evaluations). He wrote in part (LRX 5 at 1 2): program evaluations that focus predominately on achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the BLenchmark-- T es t r- esults for , bl, a, ck students in math revealed that there is great room for additiional progress. 26 [Tr. at 237-39 (Ms. Cleaver)]] 31 'treatment.' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by the stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. .  The The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. . . . B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. . . . This text serves to illuminate the problems with LRSD's two global evaluations. They lack anything like adequate program descriptions and implementation data. The testimony and their content show that they focus on analyzing student test scores. not 27 the effectiveness of particular programs. a c. The District Court's Second .Compliance RemodV. The district court again turned to the question of a remedy in context where the parties' agreement did not address the subject. The second Compliance Remedy is grounded in this court's guidance in 1990 and like precedent (supra at 26-27), applied in the light of the shortcoming identified in the court's findings. Outside a court hearing context, the LRSD had repetitively recognized an obligation to provide program evaluations of the key (or each) Sec. 2.7 program. Faced with a second default and ng such evaluations resulting from its first remedy, the court which had trusted LRSD to work out the details [Add. 39, 41], was no longer willing to do so. It crafted a Second Compliance remedy, detailing 27 Literacy evaluation: see LRX 14F at 8-9, 24 42, 44 46 (Exhs. 2195-96, 22111 -2293,, 2231-33) and Tr. at 163-65, 186, 194, 199-200, Ross)\nMath/Science: LRX 14G at 23-72, 90-103 (Exhs. 2333-46 and Tr. at 241, 243-44 (Cleaver). 205-07 (Dr. 2267-2315, 32 the components and steps needed to guarantee Intervenors the benefit of their bargain (adequate program evaluations). The remedy identifies a two year implementation period to allow for meaningful preparatory steps and evaluations, [Add. 61] Given the personnel problems, it addresses this topic from multiple perspectives (PRE staff, outside consultants, and use of Dr. Ross). [Add. 61, 63, 64] An assessment process must be approved. [Add. 62] Given past problems, the court requires identification of the particular programs to be evaluated [Add. 63], and requires four such evaluations each year [Add. 63], a number identified as feasible. Given past problems, the court requires inclusion of the core research question and study of actual implementation of programs in the schools. [Add. 63-64] The court sets time lines for preparation, approval and dissemination of evaluations. [Add. 65, 66] It addresses ODM assistance to the LRSD [Add. 65-66] and Intervenors' monitoring. [Add. 66] B. The LRSD Argument Ignores the Elements of the Governing Standards of Review and Is Otherwise Without Merit______________________________ As shown, the court faced with two defaults crafted a remedy rooted in the law of the case (established in its September 13, 2002 ruling), its detailed June 30, 2004 findings, and its remedial authority, as previously articulated by this and other courts. LRSD ffoJ^ts had twice yielded no adequate program evaluation responsive to the Sec. 2.7.1 mandate. The court has acted in a restrained manner, while seeking to provide Intervenors' the promised 2.7.1 evaluations. For example, it did not invoke the remedy of contempt, 33which LRSD nevertheless discusses at length. Intervenors next show that each LRSD contention lacks merit. 1. Itlg Aaa^rtjpn that the Term \"Assessment is Unambiguous A considerable part of the LRSD brief is rooted in the contention that the term \"assessment\" in Section 2.7.1 is unambiguous. [Brf. 31-33, 38-39] This brief has demonstrated the contrary and the need, therefore, to reach outside of that Section to define its parameters. Supra at 4-5. 2. She.Reguest for De Novo Review of the Parties^ Agreement In seeking to avoid the requirement for evaluations. LRSD notes precedent in this court that interpretation of the Parties' agreement is subject to de novo review. [Brf. 31] However, LRSD ignores the law of the case, established by the district's court's rulings of September 13, 2002, which LRSD did not appeal. See LRSD. 971 F.2d at 165. The court's interpretation was correct in any event. The term \"assessment\" was ambiguous. The court found twice. based on considerable evidence. that LRSD interpreted Section 2.7.1 to require program evaluations of key Sec. 2.7.1 programs. 237 F.Supp.2d at 1076-79\nAdd.5,11-12. Findings bearing on contract interpretation are reviewed for \"clear error.\" LRSD v. PCSSD. 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 {8thCir.l996) ]\nLRSD shows no such error. In this light, the court's interpretation is correct. as 28 Continental Bakina Co.. 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had J:\" parties\")\n.f:pundation.Telecommunications. Inc, v. Moe S.W.3d 531, 538 (Ark.2000) (reliance on \"acts practical construction placed upon a contract by the parties\" 233, 238 S.W.3d Inc. on of to 343. The Asserted \"Volunteering and Its Impact LRSD argues that it has been subjected to additional obligations because it volunteered to perform some program evaluations, which were not required by the Revised Plan. [Brf. 33 \u0026amp; n.5, 38-39] However, the district court found twice based upon LRSD writings and testimony that LRSD interpreted Section 2.7.1 to require program evaluations of the key (or all) Section 2.7 programs\nand the first such findings are the law of the case. The volunteering gambit has no support in the record below, another reason to reject this \"after-thought.\" Knight v. PCSSD. 112 F.3d 953, 955 (SthCir.1997). 4. The \"Importinq\"of an Evaluation Obligation into the Plan The same argument responds to another of LRSD's complaints, namely, that \"the district court imported a 'program evaluation' requirement into the Revised Plan. . .\" [Brf. 35] LRSD is again inattentive to the evidence, findings, rulings, and law of the case. Indeed, each of LRSD quotations from the June 2004 opinion includes the lower court's reliance on LRSD's construction of its Section 2.7.1 obligation. [Brf. 35-36] LRSD complains as to the court's finding of an admission by Dr. Lesley, supporting an evaluation obligation. [See Brf. 36 \u0026amp; n. 6 and J.Add. 19-21] Particularly in view of other evidence that LRSD recognized an resolve uncertainty)\nSturgis v. Skokos. 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark.1998) (ambiguity resolved by reliance on parties' \"subsequent statements, acts, and conduct\")\nGrand State Marketing v. Eastern PoultryDistribs^, 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App.1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") Skokos 35 217, (Ark.App.1998)I I I evaluation obligation [supra at 5-7], LRSD does not show \"clear [factual] error.\" LBSE, 359 F.3d at 963.   I I I 5. The Asserted Imposition of New Obligations LRSD's contention that the court has imposed new obligations [Brf. 37-38] is wrong in substance. Faced with two defaults, the court has simply spelled out those actions inherent in and necessary for fulfillment of LRSD's voluntary Section 2.7.1 commitment. Generally, the district court's second remedy simply mirrored LRSD's wholly, or partially unfulfilled plans and policies. Regarding the staffing and reinvigoration of the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE), LRSD first intended for PRE to prepare evaluations [Add.17]\nthereafter, it identified an active in-house role in this work [JX 2 at 4-7], which did not occur. [LRX 14F (no LRSD employee listed as involved in literacy evaluation) (Exhs. 2187)\nTr. 279] LRSD had long allowed PRE to function without adequate staff [JX 11 at 2-6, 16], a problem which Interim Associate Superintendent Glasgow testified he had rec- I ommended be addressed. [Tr. at 269] LRSD argues that the Plan did not provide for hiring the evaluation personnel. [Brf.37] True, it assumed their presence. Words on a page are not self-imlementing. I The hiring requirement responds to continued personnel shortcomings, which, in part. caused noncompliance with the I I original Section 2.7.1 commitment and then the first Compliance Remedy. The requirement in the second Compliance Remedy is grounded in the court's reserved authority and its responsibility \"to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion. to ensure 36 Ii I compliance with the . . LRSD adopted an . agreement. ...\" LESU, 921 F.2d at 1394. evaluation policy [JX 1] and detailed regulation governing the content of evaluations. [JX 2] LRSD adopts annual plans of programs to be evaluated. [LRX 3, 21] These LRSD documents manifest an intent to embed an evaluation process in the system's operation  and this is stated expressly. See LRX 18 at 2, LRX 21 at 2 (\"Program evaluation is embedded in the job expecta- tions of staff\nconsequently this is an ongoing commitment for our staff.\") LRSD recognized an obligation to provide program evaluations of key Section 2.7 programs, but failed to do so. [Add.5,38] The staff's proposed program evaluation plan for 2004-05 included six evaluations and suggested use of \"external consultants.\" [LRX 21] LRSD witness Dr . Ross testified that it was feasible and desirable for the district to perform four or five evaluations a year. [Tr. 210] In this light, LRSD's complaint about being required to a provide for eight evaluations in the two year remedy period, utilizing consultants, lacks any substance. 6. The Contention that LRSD Assessed Academig Programs LRSD contends that it \"substantially complied with any reasonable interpretation of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Compliance Remedy\" by assessment activities short of program evaluations. [Brf. 44-46] This argument lacks merit. As to the Revised Plan, the court found in Sept. 2002 that LRSD construed Sec. 2.7.1 to require program pvaluatipps of key Sec. 2.7 programs\nthe court adopted this interpretation of LRSD's 37obligation. tESD, 237 F.Supp. 2d. 1077-78. These rulings, not appealed, are the law of the case, a point not addressed by LRSD. Given evidence as to ambiguity of the term \"assessment,\" LRSD does not justify departure from the law of the case by simply asserting that Sec. 2.7.1 contains \"plain language.\" [Brf.44] LRSD asserts the adequacy of \"informal evaluations.\" [Brf. 46] However, the district court found them an inadequate substitute based upon the testimony of LRSD witness. Dr. Ross. [Add. 52-53] The adequate assessment gambit fares no better in the context of the Compliance Remedy. The evidence in the June 2004 hearing again supported findings that LRSD interpreted its Sec. 2.7.1 obligation as encompassing program evaluations. [Add. 11-13,54 ] LRSD does not show the findings to constitute \"clear error.\" [Brf.44-46] The court repeated its interpretation of LRSD's obligation.[Add.56] Dr. Ross's criticism of informal evaluations also applies here. 7. The Contention that LRSD Evaluated Academic Programs LRSD contends that any evaluation requirement under Sec. 2.7.1 was satisfied. [Brf. 46-49] The court found that LRSD advanced its literacy and math/science evaluations as its effort to comply with the first Compliance Remedy. [Add.13,23-24\nLRX 14 at 3-4, para.8] LRSD does not challenge, as \"clearly erroneous,\" this finding, or the many findings [Add.42-50] showing the inadequacy of those two evaluations, other arguments lack merit. Preliminarily, LRSD does not show that it advanced below the argument made at pages 46-49. LRSD writes that the court did not \"[make] any findings about what particular academic programs 38implemented pursuant to Sec. 2.7 must be evaluated under Sec. 2.7.1,\" [Brf. 47] However, the court noted that LRSD failed to present such information to the court. [Add.44 n. 35] Moreover, LRSD administrators could not identify such a list for ODM. [JX 11 at 23] LRSD cites as evidence of compliance 14 evaluations, which it claimed, erroneously, to have completed prior to its March 2001 Compliance Report. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1079-80. The court required their completion for a different part of the remedy. Jd- at 1088 (para, c)\nsee Add.58-61. LRSD is silent as to important facts about these evaluations. Four programs had been discontinued before the September 2002 decision. [Add.60] Based upon his review. Dr. Ross viewed eight of these studies as worthless. [LRX 16 at 1] Lastly, LRSD does not show that other evaluations mentioned were done to implement the annual assessment cycles [Add. 76 (Sec. 2.7.1)] relevant to compliance with the first Compliance Remedy. 8- LRSD's Argument Regacfling the Burden of Proof and Contempt LRSD contends that the lower court improperly allocated to it the burden of proof regarding compliance with Sec. 2.7.1. [Brf. 49 54] This argument lacks merit, in part misstating events below. LRSD writes: This case concerns LRSD's substantial compliance with contract (the Revised Plan) l..! _ __ Compliance Remedy). The burden of proof should be on the party alleging the breach. [Brf. 49] i and a court order (the 2002     The district court was wrong to assign LRSD the burden of proving its compliance with the consent decree and the 2002 Compliance Order. . . . [Brf. 52] Insofar as LRSD alludes to compliance with the Revised Plan (or a \"consent decree\"), LRSD misstates events below. Intervenors had and 39satisfied the burden of proving Sec.2.7.1. non-compliance. [Add.36] As noted (supra at 3), the Revised Plan did not address the steps to be followed in the event Intervenors proved a lack of substantial compliance with a Plan provision. Allocation of the burden of proving compliance with any further remedy was not addressed. In this setting, the court drew upon its residual authority and estab- lished law to allocate the burden of proof to LRSD. See Add.36-37 and supra at 27-29. LRSD did not appeal\nit shows neither a basis to depart from the law of the case, nor an abuse of discretion. II as LRSD states that this court \"may\" treat the proceeding below if [the district court's second 'Compliance Remedy'] were a sanction imposed on an order of contempt.\" LRSD argues that in this scenario, Intervenors would have to establish LRSD agents in contempt by clear and convincing evidence, in order to support a remedy like the one ordered in June 2004. [Brf. 50-54] There are multiple reasons for rejecting this approach. First. LRSD was fore-warned. The text of the Compliance Remedy (note 29) allocated the burden of proof to LRSD, which did not appeal. Second. The district court's choice in 2002 regarding burden of proof was grounded in precedent. Supra at 28-29. Third. There is not a \"substantial supplemental remedy,\" but instead a spelling out of the steps needed to fulfill LRSD's Sec. 2.7.1 promise, an action The first paragraph of the first Compliance Remedy provided for continued \"court supervision\" \"until fLRSDI(ajdsjnongtEatgs that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. in improving the academic achievement of African-American .\" [Add.6\nemphasis added] 2.7 29 students\n. 40 I designed to prevent a third default. Supra at 36-37. Fourth. LRSD's argument as to sanctions is also unpersuasive. The first asserted sanction [Brf. 52] is merely the cost of providing the program evaluations which LRSD. promised. The fact that a voluntary remedy has a cost does not render it improper. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d at 256. I The second \"sanction\" relates to an agreement between the Ark. Department of Education and LRSD, in which Intervenors and the district court had no role. [Brf. 52-53] LRSD cites no basis for I its contention that this factor, foreign to this proceeding, should affect how compliance with the court's order is determined. Conclusion The challenged judgment and rulings should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted. B B Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 I Norman Chachkin Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York City, NY 10013 212-965-2259 Certificate of Service B B I hereby certify that I have on December 3, 2CC4 .ualicd uwu brief to Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge, and Clark, 400 West Capitol Ave, #2000, Little Rock, AR 72201. 2004 mailed two B 41Certificate of Attorney I hereby certify that this brief has been prepared using a word perfect 5.1 program. It contains from page 1 through the conclusion 1212 lines of text, including material that is single spaced. A provided. virus free disk containing this brief has also been 42 -0 4-TO Vr, I I \u0026gt;  \u0026gt; I  I \u0026gt; I \u0026gt; \u0026gt;  I \u0026gt; \u0026gt; I \u0026gt; I \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; I \u0026gt;  \u0026gt; I 'I J i- Joshua Intervenors' Addendum 1 \u0026gt; I \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;   IIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION hlsd APR 1 0 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs.  * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants,  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. MEMORANDTJM OPTNTQN AND ORDER Before the Court are the initial joint motion and the renewed joint motion filed by the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua\") requesting that this Court approve the LRSDs proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (LRSD Proposed Revised Plan\" or \"proposed Plan\")? L Approval of the Proposed Plan After evaluating the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court hereby grants the joint motions filed by the LRSD and Joshua and hereby approves the proposed Plan.  Docket Nos. 3107 and 3136. 1 J.Add. 1 A. In 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the current version of LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan or the 1990 Plan. In 1996, after the LRSD had operated under the 1990 Plan for six (6) years, this Court scheduled a series of hearings to gather evidence upon which to evaluate the success of the 1990 Plan, along with the settlement plans of the other districts, and the desegregation remedies endorsed therein.^ At that time, even though the Court had withdrawn supervision over certain aspects of the 1990 Plan, there remained portions of that Plan which were of concern to the Court. Therefore, the Court called expert witnesses to testify, and invited the parties to call other expert witnesses to testify, regarding desegregation remedies in general in an attempt to aid the Court and the parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the 1990 3 Plan. Those evidentiary hearings were held in May of 1996. At those hearings and on several other occasions, the Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present for Court approval any proposed modifications to the desegregation and education plans under which they operate. In December of 1996, the LRSD requested and this Court approved a plan development period\" in which the LRSD could concentrate its efforts on developing such modifications to the 1990 Plan, in an attempt to 2 3 Docket No. 2631. ' The following expert witnesses testified: (1) Herbert J. Walberg, Ph.D., then a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. See Docket No. 2692. (2) David J. Armor, Ph.D., then a Research Professor at George Mason University in the Institute of Public Policy. See Docket Nos. 2693, 2694. (3) Gary Orfield, Ph.D., then a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University and the Director of The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. See Docket No. 2768. 2 J.Add. 21 I improve education and desegregation within the district.* Some time during this period, the LRSD commenced negotiations with Joshua regarding modifications to the 1990 Plan. As a result of those negotiations, the LRSD and Joshua agreed upon the provisions included in the I I I I I I t I I I I I I I ) I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I ) 1 I 1 I  1 1 1 1 1 LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court. B. The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan. shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Lill/e Tiock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District^ U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) with the following exceptions\na. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement)\nb. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nc. d. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nThe M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand. e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that because the law strongly favors settlements, courts should hospitably receive them, especially in cases such as this in which the parties have engaged in protracted, highly divisive litigation and in which any lasting solution necessarily depends upon the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. Little Rock Sch. Dist. V. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (8* Cir. 1990). When evaluating a settlement agreement, [jjudges should not substitute their own * Docket No. 2901. 5 Docket No. 3107, Exhibit A, at 1. 3 J.Add. 3judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel. 921 F.2d at 1385 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dirs, of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7' Cir. 1980)). The district court must consider the proposal as submitted by the parties. Of course, the district court may suggest modifications but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld. Id. at 1383 (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (9'*' Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)). Although settlement agreements carry with them a presumption of acceptability, id. at 1385, a district court need not automatically approve every settlement agreement the parties submit, id at 1383. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed, they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. Id. at 1383. [Bjefore a settlement agreement may be rejected because it initiates or authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a general rule. Id. at 1385 (quoting Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 321). In the area of desegregation law, the Supreme Court has determined that the Constitution does not of its own force forbid all-African-American schools. Sv/ann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971). The Constitution of its own force also does not require any particular racial percentage in various schools in the districts. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-41 (1974). Furthermore, the Constitution of its own force does not demand that all students 4 J.Add. 4 regardless of race satisfy national achievement norms. Missouri v, Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 100-01 (1995). Obviously, parties in a desegregation case may and indeed should agree to eliminate the effects of prior de jure segregation to the extent practicable. However, the details of such efforts are not specifically dictated by the Constitution. Even if the court is uncertain that the means proposed in the settlement agreement will succeed in integrating the district or concerned that the lack of sufiBcient detail in the settlement agreement may impede successful implementation, such concerns alone do not render the settlement agreement unconstitutional on its face, especially when the parties to the settlement agreement have consented to continued monitoring. 921 F.2d at 1385-86. This Court has carefully reviewed the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan as jointly submitted by the LRSD and Joshua and concludes that the Revised Plan is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. The parties have consented to continued monitoring by this Court. Although the Court acknowledges that the Revised Plan will present new challenges in regard to monitoring, these anticipated challenges do not render the Revised Plan unworkable or plainly unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be and hereby is approved. C. In the alternative, if this Court were to consider the proposed Plan as simply a modification of the 1990 Plan, this Court would approve the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. A party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, SQl U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court 5 J.Add. 5must then determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id. at 391. The modification must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, nor strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor. Id. Little RockSch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8* Cir. 1995). This Court concludes, after reviewing the circumstances of this case and the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, that this standard for modifying a consent decree has been satisfied. Based upon the voluminous Court record generated by this case since the 1990 Plan was instituted and based upon the conclusions which may be drawn from the evidentiary hearings conducted by this Court in May of 1996, this Court concludes that circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant modifying the 1990 Plan. Specifically, there are certain aspects of I the 1990 Plan that have been successfully implemented by the LRSD. Some areas of the 1990 1 Plan have been so successfully implemented that this Court has withdrawn supervision over those I areas. However, there are other stated goals in the 1990 Plan which have not been achieved. I 1 Evidence in the record tends to indicate that the LRSD has put forth minimal effort to achieve I I certain of these stated goals. More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1  1 1 1 which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD* and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. Therefore, the 1990 Plan warrants For example, the sections of the 1990 Plan regarding Student Assignment and Facilities are out of date with regard to the current situation that exists in the LRSD.  Specifically, the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparity may never be met, regardless of the effort put forth by the LRSD. See the testimony of Dr. Walberg, Docket No. 2692, at 17-25\nDr. Armor, Docket No. 2693, at 18-39\nand Dr. Orfield, Docket No. 2768, at 25-31. J.Add. 6 6 6modification. Furthennore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan funhers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. The LRSD Proposed Revised Plan is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, does not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, and has not been rewritten to conform only to the constitutional floor. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be approved. D. Having approved the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court notes that once a modification to a consent decree or a decree itself has been approved by the Court, its terms, including the details, become binding on the parties. 921 F.2d at 1384. Although at this time the Court does not anticipate the need for further modification, the Court does wish to clarify that if progress under this Revised Plan is clearly insufficient or if certain sections of the Revised Plan should prove to be unworkable, the parties may again apply for a modification of the Revised Plan. Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action, and parties seeking to change them bear an extremely heavy burden. They are not, however immiifokla \u0026lt;* A.1. .x_____ 1 * immutable in any absolute sense, and extraordinary circumstances can arise that would enable the District Court, within its discretion, to consider modifications. Id. at 1387. n. Objections to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan By previous Order, this Court directed the LRSD to provide notice of the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan and set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections to the 7 J.Add. 7I I ) I 1 I I I t I 1 I I I I 1 t 1 I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I I Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 Approved by the Board on October 10. 2002 5 EXHIBIT J. Acta\". 8 AThe District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13,2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the LirJe 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 2.7 after each year in order to deterrnina 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 Afiican-Amcrican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD, The Opinion first stated\nBecause 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 eSectivencss of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\nand (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 aU of that available data and information\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":"hbcula_becu_307","title":"Conversation Between Albert Bethune, Jr. and Dr. Reed, circa 2006","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2004-2010"],"dcterms_description":["This audio recording features a conversation between Albert Bethune, Jr. and President Dr. Reed. Albert Bethune, Jr. reflects on Founder's Day and experiences with being the finance personnel, and encourages Dr. Reed to take further steps on redirecting the community back to Bethune-Cookman College. Dr. Reed shares her established intiatives such as reading programs, fundraisers, town hall meetings, ThinkTanks, and other ideas to build community and address social issues. Albert Bethune Jr. shares with Dr. Reed methods that Dr. Mary McLeod used to engage the community and makes suggestions on how to stregthen the campus and community such as implementing whole-school retirement celebrations, faculty and staff recognition ceremonies, and Easter Monday picnics."],"dc_format":["audio/mp3"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","College presidents","African American students","Interviews","Oral history","African American authors"],"dcterms_title":["Conversation Between Albert Bethune, Jr. and Dr. Reed, circa 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/307"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_55951935","title":"Coping with police misconduct in West Virginia [electronic resource] : citizen involvement in officer disciplinary procedures : a review of existing law, legislative initiatives, and disciplinary models","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, West Virginia, 38.50038, -80.50009"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. West Virginia Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Police--West Virginia--Discipline--Citizen participation","Police misconduct--West Virginia"],"dcterms_title":["Coping with police misconduct in West Virginia [electronic resource] : citizen involvement in officer disciplinary procedures : a review of existing law, legislative initiatives, and disciplinary models"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS51662"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"wgbh_tdcr_016","title":"A country preacher : Rev. De Laine","collection_id":"wgbh_tdcr","collection_title":"Teachers' Domain Civil Rights Special Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Levine Museum of the New South","Gona, Ophelia DeLaine"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Instructional Web site recommended for grades three through twelve featuring the an interview with the children of Rev. Joseph De Laine. Clarendon County, South Carolina Reverend Joseph De Laine encouraged local families to join the class action lawsuit Briggs v. Elliot, the first to challenge public school segregation. In this video segment, Joseph De Laine, Jr. and Ophelia De Laine Gona remember their father's role in the controversial school desegregation lawsuit.","Includes a background essay, discussion questions, and alignments to teaching standards.","Major funding for this project is provided by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Supported in part by a grant from the Open Society Institute.","Grade range: 3-12.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of: Teacher's Domain Civil Right Special Collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African American clergy--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Politics and government--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Intimidation--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Violence against--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Religion--South Carolina --Clarendon County","African Americans--Social conditions--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Segregation--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Civil rights--South Carolina--Clarendon County","African Americans--Legal status, laws, etc.","Discrimination in education--Law and legislation","Civil rights movements--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Educators--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Equality--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Social justice--South Carolina--Clarendon County","South Carolina--Race relations","Segregation--South Carolina--Clarendon County","Segregation in education--South Carolina--Clarendon County","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka","Briggs, Harry, d. 1986--Trials, litigation, etc.","Briggs, Eliza, d. 1998--Trials, litigation, etc.","Elliott, R. W.--Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_title":["A country preacher : Rev. De Laine"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["WGBH Educational Foundation"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://pbslearningmedia.org/resource/iml04.soc.ush.civil.delaine/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1940/1987"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Teachers' Domain Civil Rights Collection is a collaborative production of WGBH Education Productions, the WGBH Media Library, and WGBH Interactive, in partnership with the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute and Washington University in St. Louis."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","teaching guides","resource units","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["quicktime/video","3.7 Mb","ca. 2m 53s"],"dlg_subject_personal":["De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","Pearson, Levi","Briggs, Harry, -1986","Briggs, Eliza, -1998","Elliott, R. W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1761","title":"Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-01/2004-02"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts","Little Rock School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","School enrollment","School integration","Students","Parents","Teachers","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1761"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["60 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, joint stipulation; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file reply and response to cross-appeal; District Court, motion; District Court, order; a situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District.    This transcript was create 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. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOINT STIPULATION RECEIVED JAN G 200~ OFFIC~ OF DESEGREGA110N MON\\10R\\NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On December 23, 2003, the Pulaski County Special School District No. I (PCSSD) filed a motion seeking court approval for \"two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills High School.\" The Joshua Intervenors, having been sufficiently informed regarding capacity figures, school assignments, transfer practices, and the racial balance at Sylvan Hills High School which now exceeds 40% African American students, and the PCSSD seek prompt approval of the motion because of exigent necessity for the requested additional school facilities. These two parties hereby stipulate that the PCSSD request is meritorious and that it will not otherwise undermine existing desegregation and education obligations of the PCSSD. WHEREFORE, these parties respectfully request that the Court approve the PCS SD motion. M:,,Samuel Jones, III,,AR Bar No. 76060 Respectfully s~_pmitted,, / . C. ---,X'f-_/ ..  , \u0026lt;- \u0026lt;.:..-., I~ ~: / .:..' X,::. u ?'\\....A..,,..._. v I .. L---' v l-'-- '-  r( _,t__ _ Jo}:in W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / l_ .. / WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 (501) 376-9442 (Fax) Attorney for the Pulaski County Special Special School District JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Attorney for Joshua lntervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January 7, 2004, 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 \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 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 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samu~I Jones Ill ( / -  -,_____ _/ 2 r~~ THE L~lITED STATES D1STPJ:CT C01JRT T\"' , _.._,..._\",T ~.--_..,....,..,-.._ \"..-, J _,.r' .\": -...'I'(\" t \u0026lt;\"' ,.t\\..::\u0026gt; .l L.l'\\.l 'I v.1..:, .l ~'--.l vr .a~\"\"r\\..::, i..iTTi.E ROCK DiV1SiQ7; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LO!H'NE JOSHUA, ET AL. Ki~\"'TP...EPJNE Kl\\qIGHT, ET .A .. L. ORDER Fu en ILL-U' 'I c:\" M I CTOl(\"\"T r.()URT eASTEi:tN 01s'rR1c, ARKANSAS JAN - 9 200~ 6y ---------;:;;c\"Ecprc~LE\"'RR,\u0026lt; PLAiNT.iFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Puiaski County Special Schooi District's Motion for Two Temporary Portable Building at Sylvan Hills School (Doc. No. 3826). No parties have Objected to the t'CSSD's motion, and their time for doing so has now expired. ln its motion, PCSSIJ requests authorization to lease two portable bmldings for the second semester and for the 2004-2005 school year at Sylvan .Hills High School. due to the unexpected increase m enrollment ct,:u-ing the current school year. PCSSD and the Joshua lntervenors have stipulated (Doc. !'To . 3828) that the request is meritorious a.~d ,.vill not underrr1ine eristing A t\"-,...,.. _ _ ,., ...__._: ,,.. _ ,.._,..J ...,,.:: ,,,..,.. .., ; __ .,.. t..1 ; __ ._ :...., _ .... ,,.. .\u0026amp;'-1., - D/'\"\"-C\"C,~ '-\"'--.:,\"-'!'S\"\"\"!S\"'UUJ.J. a.u.u. .... uu.\\..a\\.J.UJ.L UUHl!!::,aUU.iL,=:, U.L UJ.C ),. \\...,..JLH . ./. Because no parties have objected to the motion and based on the stipulation between PCSSD and the Joshua intervenors. the PCSSD's Motion for Two Temporary Portabie Building at Sylvan Hills School is GRANTED. .,......_ IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2004. , / / -~J~ . It I fl /4 r ~..--- _ ---f If {/f.,,1 / VIA.~ /IV IJ ~ UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON. JR. TO: DATE: JTNTTED ~T ATF.~ fl!~'T'R lf'\"f ( ,(ll l R'T' EASTJ!,RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris .Heller Sam Iones ~teve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier l1 nn tv1'o.-Qho 11 liK ., ..... t,. D-. -. - o +4-.o '- \"' \"''\"\"'-'-A),, J-''\"4.1. AA\"-''-'-\\,,, I__, () I L  ~ -../ Telephone: 501-604-5140 F:ix Nnrnher: S01-604 Sl 49 376-2147 3 76-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 6R2-2591 371-0!00 .\".l, .',~.., 10Af\\ J..  .T V There are 0ages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. -4 /} ,4 ~ . ~ , #' ,~L- -~7~,V-, 'II .~,,- 1 // Ottice of Judge Wm. R. Wi1s9)( Jr. U.S. District Court / 600 West Capitol. RoOI#23 Little Rock, Arkam a\" 72?0) ,~1att ~1orgaJl, LRSD La1vv Clerk: t;\" A'I r l\"\\ A :; \u0026lt;t A 1 JV J VV\"?~ J \"? .( I  I I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I I REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor SECOND UPDATE January 14, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor L... L... u u.,. J.  J. ,. WILL BOND cone \u0026amp; ~namcer11n BOND \u0026amp;. CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKS0t14\"Yl~LE, AAiW'iJSAS 72U76 501 J 882 - 9414 p.2 NEIL CHAMBERLIN January 22, 2004 TELEPHONE: (501) 982.9081 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans : Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in the abovereferenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger With Warmest Regards, Will Bond l.sc.hool district detach.ment.e1ghth circuic.appeal\\clerk.jan.22. 04 uu 11u ac wr1c:1mue r - 1 1 n l!:\u0026gt;Ul I 982 - 9414 m..TITED STATES COURT OF ~-.?PEALS ~OR TE:E XIGHTK CIR~ul~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT:tFF V. No. 03-3088 PULASKI COO?,.'TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRXCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERUm KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. APPELLBES INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ APPELLANTS MOTION POR BXTlfflSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY AND RESPONSB TO CROSS-APPEAL Come the Appellants , the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for their Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Their Reply Brief and Response to Cross-Appeal, state: 1. On or about December 23, 2003, Appellees filed a Response and Cross-Appeal to Appellants Brie. Appellant's Reply and Response are due January 22, 2004. 2. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' Reply and Response to Cross-Appeal is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel, Will Bond, is a State Representative elected to represent the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The Arkansas General Assembly is currently in special session. The special session began on December 8, 2003 and is still ongoing. It is the longest special session in history. Appellants' counsel has p.3 ouria.,. 1.,namcer11n l~Ul J ::H:lc - ::1414 been the lead sponsor on legiBlation during the session and nas been unable to complete the Reply and Response Brief. 3 . Although the Reply and Response will be very short, Mr. Bond requests an additional eight (8) days in which to file his brief. This would make the brief due on January 30, 2004 . Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 902-9081 Telefax (501) 982-94i4 By: Will Bond ~.R Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE r. Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing plea.ding by tJnit:ed States Mail I add.reseed to such attorney or party with suffici~l}.t prepaid postage to ensure rirst-class delivery this ,.Q.;2.fiiciay of January, 2004: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock. AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 Via Fax@ 376-9442 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 2 ...,c:311 L..L.. L..UV\"'T J,.V  J.\"'T cone \u0026amp; Lnamoer11n John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone {501)374-3758 (501) 982-9414 Via Fa..'X @ 374-4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring , n.,,.;,.....,.., 1\\T::iti ...... ,..,::,l Pl;1za 124 w. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Reck, ]).R 72201 Telephone 340-8285 Ti~ Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201- 2610 Telephone 692-2586 By: Via Fax@ 375- 1027 Via Fax@ 3 7 1 -0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340- 8282 Via Fax \u0026amp; 682 - 2591 Will Bond, AR Bar 95145 l.  chool di  trict det  chmnt . eigh~b circuit.appeal . .mo tion Lor exceru;ion.jan.22.04 3 p.S ...,-  ._._ ._.....,....., I .L U .L \"'T oursu\"' L.namoer11n lb: Ann Marshall From: Win Bond Fax: 371-0100 Pag- Including Coversheet 5 Dair. Jaooary 22. 2004 Re: Littte Roel\u0026lt; School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. The informatton contained In this tu nnsrnttal Is confldentlal attomey-dlent privileged information and Is iranded solely tor the uee of the lndlvldual or entity named as recipient. If this inauase its received by -one other than the :rn..r~ TiClpief'K, you are prohiblied from I ny dillumlnatioll, dielribution or copying d this communication eXC9PI to the add,.._ If this communication ha9 been nte8Mld by you In error, or If you arc not s1on1 al It. intend.d dilltrtbutlon, please notify lhe a~ced office at 1-aBa-2A5-1ffl. p. 1 . ,',--.- RECE\\\\JED FE.B :- l\\ 2004   :- \". .;  ' OFflCEOF .. ;,:  . OiSEGREGAl\\ON MOtUlOR\\MG : . ~::'\u0026gt;\u0026gt; -_. ,. .. . . .~ .... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT The court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities. Although the court's order is on appeal, counsel has sought to abide by the letter and spirit of the court's order. Counsel, however, brings to the court's attention an egregious situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District, who elected to attend a PCS SD school Clinton Elementary, with a request that the court assign the matter for inquiry and report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ( see Enclosure) Respectfully submitted, Jqhn W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway _ Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187(fax) J 0119,w . walker  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this 3rd day of February 2004 by placing copy in the United States mail postage prepaid. '!Ti Lj son., , Lee. ......I.., _ _ -J 01 _..o , o r_ \" TH+r i _u . :i o.,.. . s+ -u. olQ__.~,... ct ,.. ,c t_,~ rr l ____ \\_T\\ .. , 1' Y'iu q v-u...,.t I:. le..n\"- . Lee.. 1 .$ Lo U e- Q .tt_/ ~ ccni ... J ~ - \\.). t , 1..ul I I j  . J he, 1 s i n + h.s;., I' 1 ~ r a de_ . L1 l'L Fe h -- 1.J c. ,~_l:j J.., 1 .;:z L'G ~ Lee.s ie o c. he. r 5 en+ I-LUY\\. J1ome --l'=rum St \\rioo C  LL, , 'f h '-I\", c, S h:::,e s l)n. h..t. s -f-e e i: . +I er h c, n1 e I s {Y'\\ rs En\", s. On Feb ;J., 1 i. Luo s ~Lu n, n5 c-\"':'d C1 I S O + /,e., -it. rr, { l t. \"IC, 'tLVt..L LU Q S 30 . ft C) o-\\ u -FT l4 }, , s b u s eel -10~ 1o... mo, r o c_ CV.d Luc, \\ k_a cl .t,. ~ unu d, G ih 'fron r u c'.- +o ,;!(,;r\"'- V cu, e, u r -c n Lu NY\\ I S o w =\u0026lt;j S ore h e.- 10 cv::i f\\ c-d j-Qt e d ,.,J.!f J,.,v) ~ ,., 1,J ..__. li., R..Luu1,..__,c.,; h,V) ,nus e k 10t_n R.-LlfUo_; ~q L , , .,, \" \u0026lt;' f-,, ,. ,., ., A _.,  -.. .J1 1 ~, ~ 1 r U v\\.....,/u:_, ,.J , ) 1 c._ t'\\....L, '9 1 .. CJ,..'i..,l.J'--q Cu,~ h..t I:_ u1.tl dJ\"-T '1'Yll, v e.. h , s +e ct , rv e u1-,JJ cr1 P:icvv L~fJ Io, I K, J__ c_ u i L, cl ;' Fm S Cu1d ~'-) c Qnu__ +c, ~ r-ic 17v__, GLn d i: I\\.., ct_,l_.,, d cf- e. e. -i-o, d ~ . 171 e rns ice, s +r ':\\ \"'j -lo , b r , 'j :i)rn e., htQ:.t bacK I ruo 1--v, s 6~. J_ c,, i so ccruuctrd ~ L. Po V ~ -e... ,j e() t ~ -tu:, K. o  efo rt Cl.rd cl-10/1.1: d Truv:i :-r-Jn \\ s Lui -+k__ E ndan3-e (r, +1-u___ Lue\\ fo.r -e.,, o-f Cl ~Or(.  L lt\u0026lt;) o tor1...:i uc 't-e. d Sn-e I loo OU u. -u;---,. e,_, p t b' u;-,t- ~ - -, d cn~t- 1 ru__y 1yj CLA'l... t: to --t-a k...t__ ~--L ~ e..ro rt - j h ; S 1 S th_ -e_ kJo r- s t . ')~ of' . nuj L 1 fe., buc,.,u~ i T , S e e m._,s ,L : k.t., no o ~ l\u0026lt;.)a.rul: s +o do Q ~-lkc.,~ cu00Lct -th.vi . Cu-u.fuzl -ij ou er-eq S G .De--e c:...-t m-c -+o Som e 00.Ju who C.etf -r .s Q o Lct Lc) h.cL;t ~ o__,p_p-e1u1 cl +o n~ '5 i. x ...t.~UV\\__; o 1 cl o t\\. Fe 6 {)., _ :1 co ~ . RECEIVED FEB 1 o 2004 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FEB -6 1004 CORMACK, CLERK JAMES W  Mc oEP cLERK .B'f PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In their motion filed February 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 3832), Joshua Intervenors assert that \" [t]he court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities.\" I have no idea what order Joshua Intervenors are referring to. I do not believe that I have entered an order that would, in anyway, limit Joshua Intervenors' counsel's duty to represent his clients, or to take appropriate steps to address the \"egregious situation\" alleged in the February 3 motion. To the contrary, I would expect counsel to \"do the necessary\" with respect to clients. Accordingly, Joshua Intervenors' Motion (Doc. No. 3832) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ay ofFebruary, 2004. WM. R . WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866    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":"loc_rosaparks_47172","title":"Cousins of Rosa Parks, 2004 [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item.","Additional text on back of print: \"Barbara Ann Williamson Alexander, 2nd cousin; Eric 9 yrs., 4th cousin, Barbara's grandson; Devyn 3 yrs., 4th cousin, Barbara's grandaughter\"."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["Cousins of Rosa Parks, 2004 [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47172"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor2000-2010.gmgpc","portrait photographs2000-2010.gmgpc","group portraits2000-2010.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vhs_crmva_danville","title":"Danville","collection_id":"vhs_crmva","collection_title":"Civil Rights Movement in Virginia : An Exhibition on Display February 7 - June 19, 2004","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Danville, 36.58597, -79.39502"],"dcterms_creator":["Library of Virginia"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Section of online exhibit focusing on African American civil rights demonstrations in 1963 and the resistance of white city officials. The page includes one black-and-white photograph from the Virginia Historical Society and the Library of Virginia.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of: The Civil Rights movement in Virginia (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Civil Rights Movement in Virginia Collection (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Segregation--Virginia--Danville","Civil rights movements--Virginia--Danville","African Americans--Civil rights--Virginia--Danville","Discrimination in public accommodations--Virginia--Danville","Police brutality--Virginia--Danville","Civil rights demonstrations--Virginia--Danville"],"dcterms_title":["Danville"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Virginia Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://virginiahistory.org/learn/historical-book/chapter/danville"],"dcterms_temporal":["1963"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_983","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/983"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED JAN 2 0 2006 A1VA LYS Is DESEGREG~'~NNi'~ITi ORING OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSO Director of Student Affairs North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions I School Year 2004-2005 District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools 9 Year Comparison Ref: DIS032 Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 4 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ========================-===---=--=-------=-========-=--======================== 09 S.A.C. 1961 55.2% 979 27.5% 394 11.1% 220 6.2% 3554 681 430 201 137 1449 10 HOME SUSP. 469 66.1% 157 22.1% 66 9.3% 18 2.5% 710 272 96 39 14 421 11 BOYS CLUB 316 58.7% 155 28.8% 51 9.5% 16 3.0% 538 187 96 39 11 333 12 E. I.C. 195 66.3% 70 23.8% 18 6.1% 11 3.7% 294 103 46 14 7 170 17 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 0 .0% 2 50.0% 0 .0% 4 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================-------------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 1560 52.3% 860 28.8% 390 13 .1% 172 5.8% 2982 626 421 211 117 1375 10 HOME SUSP. 753 61. 2% 325 26.4% 110 8.9% 43 3.5% 1231 438 200 72 30 740 11 BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I.C. 110 72. 4% 30 19.7% 11 7.2% 1 .7% 152 70 17 9 1 97 17 EXPULSION 11 52.4% 0 .0% 9 42.9% 1 4.8% 21 11 0 9 1 21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= COMPARISON ====------------------------------------------------------------------------==== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------------------------------------------------------------=======- 09 S.A.C. 401- 20.4-% 119- 12.2-% 4- 1.0-% 48- 21.8-% 572- 55- 9- 10 20- 74- 10 HOME SUSP. 284 60.6 % 168 107.0 % 44 66.7 % 25 138. 9 % 521 166 104 33 16 319 11 BOYS CLUB 313- 99.1-% 154- 99.4-% 51- 100.0-% 16- 100.0-% 534- 184- 95- 39- 11- 329- 12 E. I.C. 85- 43.6-% 40- 57.1-% 7- 38.9-% 10- 90.9-% 142- 33- 29- 5- 6- 73- 17 EXPULSION 9 450.0 % 0 .0 % 7 350.0 % 1 100.0 % 17 9 0 7 1 17 l l I I I I I Ref: DIS032 Date: 8/09/05 Time : 7 : 3 4 : 21 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 228 65.1% 83 23.7% 33 9.4% 6 1. 7% 350 145 51 20 5 221 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 194 66.2% 70 23.9% 18 6.1% 11 3.8% 293 102 46 14 7 169 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 224 69.3% 52 16.1% 34 10.5% 13 4. 0% 323 129 34 20 6 189 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 110 72.4% 30 19.7% 11 7.2% 1 7 g_  0 152 70 17 9 1 97 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=============-----------------------------------------------------------==--= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 1.8-% 31- 37.3-% 1 3.0 % 7 116. 7 % 27- 16- 17- 0 1 32- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 84- 43.3-% 40- 57.1-% 7- 38.9-% 10- 90.9-% 141- 32- 29- 5- 6- 72- 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 I l J 1 Ref: DIS032 Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1199 55.6% 613 28.4% 218 10.1% 125 5.8% 2155 397 250 100 71 818 10 HOME SUSP. 50 58.1% 23 26. 7% 6 7.0% 7 8.1% 86 35 14 5 6 60 11 BOYS CLUB 246 59.3% 125 30.1% 33 8.0% 11 2.7% 415 131 71 22 7 231 12 E. I. C. 1 100.0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========================================================-=-------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 839 52.0% 434 26.9% 254 15.8% 85 5.3% 1612 328 224 131 54 737 10 HOME SUSP. 199 53.4% llO 29.5% 52 13. 9% 12 3.2% 373 122 74 29 8 233 ll BOYS CLUB 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 4 3 1 0 0 4 12 E. I. C. 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 55.6% 0 .0% 4 44.4% 0 0 g_  0 9 5 0 4 0 9 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=====---------------------------------------------------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 360- 30.0-% 179- 29.2-% 36 16.5 % 40- 32.0-% 543- 69- ' 26- 31 17- 81- 10 HOME SUSP. 149 298.0 % 87 378.3 % 46 766.7 % 5 71. 4 % 287 87 60 24 2 173 ll BOYS CLUB 243- 98.8-% 124- 99.2-% 33- 100.0-% ll- 100.0-% 4ll- 128- 70- 22- 7- 227- 12 E. I.C. 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 \"% 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 5 500.0 % 0 .0 % 4 400.0 % 0 . 0 % 9 5 0 4 0 9 I I I I I Ref: DIS032 Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 762 54.5% 284 191 69.7% 92 70 56.9% 56 0 .0% 0 2 50.0% 2 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 366 26.2% 180 51 18.6% 31 30 24.4% 25 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 17 6 12.6% 101 27 9.9% 14 18 14.6% 17 0 .0% 0 2 50.0% 2 -----NSF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 95 6.8% 66 5 1.8% 3 5 4.1% 4 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 1399 631 274 140 123 102 0 0 4 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------==== 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU ~ STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 721 52.6% 426 31. 1% 136 9.9% 87 6.4% 1370 298 197 80 63 638 10 HOME SUSP. 327 61.5% 163 30.6% 24 4.5% 18 3.4% 532 185 92 23 16 316 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 6 50.0% 0 .0% 5 41. 7% 1 8.3% 12 6 0 5 1 12 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 41- 5.4-% 60 16.4 % 40- 22.7-% 8- 8.4-% 2 9- 14 17 21- 3- 7 10 HOME SUSP. 136 71. 2 % 112 219.6 % 3- 11. 1-% 13 260.0 % 258 93 61 9 13 17 6 11 BOYS CLUB 70- 100.0-% 30- 100.0-% 18- 100.0-% 5- 100.0-% 123- 56- 25- 17- 4- 102- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4 200.0 % 0 .0 % 3 150.0 % 1 100.0 % 8 4 0 3 1 8 I I I I I J Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 11/11/05 6:51:45 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ------===========-=--=--------------------==-========----====--=--============== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 58.8% 11 32.4% 2 5.9% 1 2.9% 34 16 5 2 1 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 0 .0% 0 8.3% 12 6 3 0 1 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 67. 9% 1 3.6% 3 10.7% 5 17.9% 28 7 1 2 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 5.0-% 10- 90.9-% 1 50.0 % 4 400.0 % 6- 9- 4- 0 1 12- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 8- .0 % 3- . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- . 0 % 12- 1- 1- 0 1- 10- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ==========-==========--=-----------------------------==---------------========== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----==============--------------------------------==-==========-------------==== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 2 28.6% 0 .0% 7 3 1 2 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==========--------------------------==================-------------------==== COMPARISON -----======-------------------------================------------------------==== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 300.0 % 1 100. 0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 6 2 1 2 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 033 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 g_  0 0 27 79.4% 16 0 0 g_  0 0 49 84.5% 15 0 09-  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 g_  0 0 7 20.6% 4 0 0 g_  0 0 9 15.5% 3 0 0 g_  0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 09-  0 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 9-  0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 Os,.  0 0 0 0 g_  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 34 20 0 0 58 18 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Os,.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 5 1 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Os,.  0 0 .0% 0 Os,.  0 0 Os,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 30 76.9% 9 23.1% 0 .0% 0 Os,.  0 39 17 2 0 0 19 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 Os,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20- 74.1-% 6- 85.7-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 26- 11- 3- 0 0 14- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 19- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 19- 0 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 05!-  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 Se  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 53 79.1% 14 20.9% 0 0 Se  0 0 05!-  0 67 34 9 0 0 43 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 72 74.2% 25 25.8% 0 .0% 0 05!-  0 97 40 17 0 0 57 17 EXPULSION 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================--------=========================-------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 0 0 Se  0 0 05!-  0 0 .0% 0 0 Se  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 67 84.8% 12 15.2% 0 0 Se  0 0 .0% 79 42 10 0 0 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 54 80.6% 13 19.4% 0 .0% 0 0 5l-  0 67 34 9 0 0 43 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-==-=--=========--------------=============-----------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 14 26.4 % 2- 14.3-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 12 8 1 0 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 18- .0 % 12- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 30- 0 0 0 0 14- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 11/11/05 6:51:45 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 77.8% 5 18.5% 0 .0% 1 3. 7% 27 13 3 0 1 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 23 50.0% 18 39.1% 0 .0% 0 10.9% 46 13 11 0 2 26 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===========-----------------===========================----------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 40.0% 6 60.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 10 4 4 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 10 71. 4% 3 21. 4 % 1 7.1% 0 .0% 14 7 2 1 0 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -=============--------------------=================-=-------------------======== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=======----------------------------=======-----------------------------==-- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 17- 81. 0-% 1 20.0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 17- 9- 1 0 1- 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 13- . 0 % 15- . 0 % 1 .0 % 5- . 0 % 32- 1- 1- 1 5- 16- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------=--=------------------------------------=-============================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 38 44.7% 26 30.6% 18 21. 2% 3 3.5% 85 23 14 6 2 45 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1 16.7% 4 66.7% 0 16.7% 0 09-  0 6 1 2 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 55 64.7% 23 27.1% 2 2.4% 5 5.9% 85 23 11 2 1 37 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 17 44.7 % 3- 11. 5-% 16- 88.9-% 2 66.7 % 0 0 3- 4- 1- 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 4- .0 % 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 6- 1- 1- 1- 0 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I Ref: OIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 50.0% 0 Og.  0 4 50.0% 0 Og.  0 8 2 0 3 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 18 72.0% 2 8.0% 0 20.0% 0 .0% 25 12 2 5 0 19 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================================================--------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 20.0% 0 .0% 8 80.0% 0 .0% 10 2 0 3 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 4 30.8% 3 23.1% 5 38.5% 1 7.7% 13 4 3 3 1 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ================---------------------===========-----------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 0 2- 0 0 0 14- 1- 0 0 0 g.  0 50.0-% .0 % .0 % .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 .0 % .0 % .0 % .0 % .0 % 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 % 100.0 % .0 % .0 % .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 .0 % .0 % .o % .0 % .0 % 0 0 2 0 0 0 12- 8- 0 0 I I I I I J J J J J Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 93.8% 0 Og.  0 1 6.3% 0 0 g.  0 16 9 0 1 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------==============-------=====-----------------=== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 61.3% 1 3.2% 11 35.5% 0 Og.  0 31 15 1 7 0 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 9-  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------=======-=====------------------------------== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 26.7 % 1 100.0 % 10 1000.0 % 0 . 0 % 15 6 1 6 0 13 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I ] l Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 10 1 7 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 g_  0 1 100.0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 9-  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----Bf------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REf PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------==------------------=-==========================------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 62.5% 4 12.5% 6 18.8% 2 6.3% 32 11 3 3 2 19 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 O!l-  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------====------==----------------------------=-== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBf----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------------------------------==== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 1900.0 % 5- 55.6-% 6 600.0 % 2 200.0 % 22 10 4- 3 2 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 . 0 % 1- . 0 % 1 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 1- 1 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 4 2 1 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 13 59.1% 7 31. 8% 0 9.1% 0 0 9-  0 22 10 6 2 0 18 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 8 7 0 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g.  0 0 0 9-  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 3 75.0% 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 0 g.  0 4 1 0 1 0 2 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------------------------------==== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 166.7 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 4 5 1- 0 0 4 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 10- . 0 % 7- . 0 % 1- .0 % 0 . 0 % 18- 1- 1- 1- 0 16- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I J ) Ref: DIS032S 11/11/05 6:51:45 045 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 6 60.0% 3 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 4 40.0% 3 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -==================--------==================================-=------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 7 5 0 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======================-=-=-=============================-------------------===== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7 % 4- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 2 3- 0 0 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ===================================-=-=========--------------------------======= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 31 75.6% 5 12.2% 5 12.2% 0 .0% 41 23 5 5 0 33 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =====================================================--------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 5 1 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====================================================------=-======---------==== COMPARISON =====================================================---------------------====== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================================================--------------------========= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 24- 77.4-% 4- 80.0-% 5- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 33- 18- 4- 5- 0 27- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =======================================================----------------=--====== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61.5% 1 7.7% 3 23.1% 1 7.7% 13 4 1 3 1 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 9 36.0% 1 4.0% 0 40.0% 0 20.0% 25 6 1 6 4 17 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================================================--------------------------== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 70.0% 0 .0% 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 10 4 0 1 1 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 9 64.3% 2 14.3% 3 21.4% 0 .0% 14 7 1 3 0 11 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====================================--=--==========-----------------------===== COMPARISON =====================================================-------------------======== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --============================================-----------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 12.5-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 33.3-% 0 . 0 % 3- 0 1- 2- 0 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 1 . 0 % 7- .0 % 5- . 0 % 11- 0 1 7- 5- 6- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 681 56.7% 341 28.4% 107 8.9% 73 6.1% 1202 156 106 34 34 330 10 HOME SUSP. 38 62.3% 16 26.2% 3 4.9% 4 6.6% 61 25 9 3 3 40 11 BOYS CLUB 81 70.4% 24 20.9% 8 7.0% 2 1. 7% 115 38 12 4 1 55 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 337 54.5% 193 31.2% 67 10.8% 21 3.4% 618 124 86 32 15 257 10 HOME SUSP. 52 57.8% 27 30.0% 10 11.1% 1 1.1% 90 37 15 6 1 59 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 83.3% 0 .0% 1 16. 7% 0 .0% 6 5 0 1 0 6 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 344- 50.5-% 148- 43.4-% 40- 37.4-% 52- 71.2-% 584- 32- 20- 2- 19- 73- 10 HOME SUSP. 14 36.8 % 11 68.8 % 7 233.3 % 3- 75.0-% 29 12 6 3 2- 19 11 BOYS CLUB 81- 100.0-% 24- 100.0-% 8- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 115- 38- 12- 4- 1- 55- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 5 500.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 6 5 0 1 0 6 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL --------------------------------==============================-----------======= 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- If REF PCT/TOT If REF PCT/TOT If REF PCT/TOT If REF PCT/TOT If STU If STU If STU If STU ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=-=== 09 S.A.C. 163 46. 7% 92 26. 4% 60 17.2% 34 9. 7% 349 68 45 38 25 176 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 6 1 1 1 3 6 11 BOYS CLUB 32 47.8% 18 26.9% 10 14.9% 7 10.4% 67 22 12 8 4 46 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------=------------======= 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -------=------------=-=-=======================-==============-=------========== -----BM-----lf REF PCT/TOT If STU -----BF------ lf REF PCT /TOT If STU -----NBM----lf REF PCT/TOT If STU -----NBF----lf REF PCT/TOT If STU ----------------------------------========-=-------------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 127 39. 4 % 61 18.9% 103 32.0% 31 9.6% 322 57 35 59 25 176 10 HOME SUSP. 29 35.8% 19 23.5% 31 38.3% 2 2.5% 81 21 14 15 2 52 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 100.0% 0 .0% 3 0 0 3 0 3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=== COMPARISON -----------------------------------============-------------------------====--== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- lf REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) If REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) If STU If STU If STU If STU -------=------------------------------=--=-----------------------------====--==- 09 S.A.C. 36- 22.1-% 31- 33.7-% 43 71. 7 % 3- 8.8-% 27- 11- 10- 21 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 28 2800.0 % 18 1800.0 % 30 3000.0 % 1- 33.3-% 75 20 13 14 1- 46 11 BOYS CLUB 32- 100.0-% 18- 100.0-% 10- 100.0-% 7- 100.0-% 67- 22- 12- 8- 4- 4 6- 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3 300.0 % 0 .o % 3 0 0 3 0 3 I I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 57 55.9% 41 40.2% 3 2.9% 1 1.0% 102 38 27 2 1 68 10 HOME SUSP. 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 5 4 1 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 23 39.0% 35 59.3% 1 1. 7% 0 .0% 59 16 24 1 0 41 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===========================================================---------------===== 09 S.A.C. 105 59.7% 35 19.9% 26 14.8% 10 5. 7% 176 44 22 10 4 80 10 HOME SUSP. 42 50.6% 35 42.2% 4 4.8% 2 2.4% 83 25 26 4 2 57 11 BOYS CLUB 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 3 0 0 0 3 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===================-----=--=========================-----------------------===== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -================--------------=================-------------------------======- 09 S.A.C. 48 84.2 % 6- 14.6-% 23 766.7 % 9 900.0 % 74 6 5- 8 3 12 10 HOME SUSP. 38 950.0 % 34 3400.0 % 4 400.0 % 2 200.0 % 78 21 25 4 2 52 11 BOYS CLUB 20- 87.0-% 35- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 56- 13- 24- 1- 0 38- 12 E. I. C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 027 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 22 75.9% 4 13.8% 3 10.3% 0 .0% 29 15 3 1 0 19 10 HOME SUSP. 7 50.0% 5 35. 7% 2 14.3% 0 .0% 14 5 3 1 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 5 2 3 0 0 5 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================-----------====== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ======================---==========================---------------------=-====== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --===============-==-----------================-------------------------=======- 09 S.A.C. 22- 100.0-% 4- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 29- 15- 3- 1- 0 19- 10 HOME SUSP. 7- 100.0-% 5- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 14- 5- 3- 1- 0 9- 11 BOYS CLUB 2- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 5- 2- 3- 0 0 5- 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time : 6 : 51 : 4 5 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------------------------------------------------====== 09 S.A.C. 276 58.4% 135 28.5% 45 9.5% 17 3.6% 473 128 72 25 12 237 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 b 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 108 63.9% 45 26.6% 14 8.3% 2 1. 2% 169 54 21 9 2 86 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------============================================-------======== 09 S.A.C. 270 54.3% 146 29. 4 % 58 11. 7% 23 4.6% 4 97 113 84 31 12 240 10 HOME SUSP. 76 65.0% 27 23.1% 7 6.0% 7 6.0% 117 40 18 4 3 65 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------==-------------------------------======= 09 S.A.C. 6- 2.2-% 11 8.1 % 13 28.9 % 6 35.3 % 24 15- 12 6 0 3 10 HOME SUSP. 76 7600.0 % 27 2700.0 % 7 700.0 % 7 700.0 % 117 40 18 4 3 65 11 BOYS CLUB 108- 100.0-% 44- 97.8-% 14- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 168- 54- 20- 9- 2- 85- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 200 53.6% 66 17.7% 65 17.4% 42 11. 3% 373 99 53 46 27 225 10 HOME SUSP. 10 66.7% 0 .0% 4 26.7% 1 6. 7% 15 9 0 4 1 14 11 BOYS CLUB 15 51. 7% 5 17.2% 8 27.6% 1 3.4% 29 15 5 8 1 29 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===========================================================-=--------------==== 09 S.A.C. 142 42.5% 101 30.2% 67 20.1% 24 7.2% 334 88 69 41 17 215 10 HOME SUSP. 59 60.8% 21 21. 6% 6 6.2% 11 11. 3% 97 52 18 6 10 86 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 ==========================================================---------------======= COMPARISON =====================================================----------------------===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============------------------=============-----------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 58- 29.0-% 35 53.0 % 2 3.1 % 18- 42.9-% 39- 11- 16 5- 10- 10- 10 HOME SUSP. 49 490.0 % 21 2100.0 % 2 50.0 % 10 1000.0 % 82 43 18 2 9 72 11 BOYS CLUB 15- 100.0-% 5- 100.0-% 8- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 29- 15- 5- 8- 1- 2 9- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 1 0 0 0 1 1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 562 54.8% 300 29.2% 111 10.8% 53 5.2% 1026 185 127 55 39 406 10 HOME SUSP. 67 65.0% 26 25.2% 10 9.7% 0 Og_  0 103 37 13 6 0 56 11 BOYS CLUB 55 58.5% 25 26.6% 10 10.6% 4 4.3% 94 41 20 9 3 73 12 E. I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og.  0 2 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 50.0% 0 0 g_  0 2 50.0% 0 0 g_  0 4 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===================================================-=----------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 579 55.9% 324 31. 3% 69 6. 7% 63 6.1% 1035 210 127 39 46 422 10 HOME SUSP. 167 56.2% 106 35. 7% 17 5.7% 7 2.4% 297 94 57 16 6 173 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 (j 17 EXPULSION 6 54.5% 0 Og_  0 5 45.5% 0 0 g.  0 11 6 0 5 0 11 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=== 09 S.A.C. 17 3.0 % 24 8.0 % 42- 37.8-% 10 18.9 % 9 25 0 16- 7 16 10 HOME SUSP. 100 149.3 % 80 307.7 % 7 70.0 % 7 700.0 % 194 57 44 10 6 117 11 BOYS CLUB 55- 100.0-% 25- 100.0-% 10- 100.0-% 4- 100.0-% 94- 41- 20- 9- 3- 73- 12 E. I. C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % o 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 4 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 3 150.0 % 0 . 0 % 7 4 0 3 0 7 I I Ref: DIS032S Date: 11/11/05 Time: 6:51:45 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------------------------------=----=-==--====-==================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 114 73.1% 25 16.0% 13 8.3% 4 2.6% 156 51 18 6 2 77 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 ------------=-=-===-============================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------=-============================================-------======== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 102 71. 3% 40 28.0% 1 .7% 0 .0% 143 46 23 1 0 70 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------====================------------------------===== COMPARISON ----=========---------------========-----------=======-=----------------===---== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------=============--------------------------====---= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12- 10.5-% 15 60.0 % 12- 92. 3-% 4- 100.0-% 13- 5- 5 5- 2- 7- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions Schoo1Year2004-2005 I District Level Elementary Middle Schools High Schools I 9 Year Comparison J IJ IJ IJ IJ I J I J I J I I I I I J I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  \"03-04 1961 979 394 220  \"04-05 1560 860 390 172  '03-04  '04-05 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 469 157 66 18 004-05 753 325 111 43  03-04 04-05 I J I I 1 I I I l I J I J I J I I I I I I I I 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 316 155 51 16 04-05 3 1 0 0  03-04  04-05 I J IJ I I J I I I J I I 1 I I I I I I I I l I 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 195 70 18 11 04-05 110 30 11 1  03-04 04-05 11 I I I I I 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 2 0 2 0 004-05 11 0 9 1  03-04 D 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1 _/ 0.9-v 0.8- o. 7 _,, o.\u0026amp;-v 0.5-v 0.4-  0.3 _,, 0.2_v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 0 0 0 0 C!I 04-05 0 0 0 0  03-04  04-05 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension ___,,....,...~~i\"I--'-\"'.\",\"..-.,_.- .. .. ~=~ -  - 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 228 83 33 6 GJ 04-05 224 52 34 13  03-04  04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club ~- ~-~~~ 1 _/ 0.9_v o.a-o. 7 _,, 0.6-  o.s-v 0  4-V 0.3-\" 0.2-  0.1 _v 0  03-04 El 04-05 BM BF 0 0 0 0 NBM 0 0 NBF 0 0  03-04 D 04-05 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 194 70 18 11 04-05 110 30 11 1  03-04 04-05 L I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion -  ~-~-~ 1 _/ 0.9-/ o.a-v 0.7-v 0.6- 0.5_/ 0.4-/ 0.3-v 0.2- 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 0 0 0 0  04-05 0 0 0 0  03-04 D 04-05 I - l North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 1199 614 218 125  04-05 839 434 254 85  03-04 CJ 04-05 J I J I J I J I J 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 50 23 6 7 04-05 199 110 53 12  03-04 04-05 I  I l I l I l I l I J I I I 1 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 246 125 33 11 004-05 3 1 0 0  03-04 D 04-05 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 1 0 0 0 D 04-05 0 0 0 0  03-04 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion 5-\" - 4.5 _v 4-V - ......... 3.5-\" 3- 2  5 _LI 2-v ~ 1.5 _v . .)\n',.,\n1 - , : '\\ 0.5 _/ - . 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 0 0 0 0  04-05 5 0 4 0  03-04 D 04-05 I J I I I I J I I I I 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 762 366 176 95 04-05 721 426 136 87  03-04 D 04-05 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension . . - - ... BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 191 52 27 5 04-05 327 163 24 18  03-04 04-05 ] I J I J I J I J I J I J I J I J I 1 I I I I I I 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 70 30 18 5 004-05 0 0 0 0  03-04 D 04-05 I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 _/ 0.9-v 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6- 0.5 _v 0.4-v 0.3-v 0.2- 0.1-\" 0 BM BF NBM NBF  03-04 0 0 0 0 D 04-05 0 0 0 0  03-04 04-05 6 5 4 3 2 1 0  03-04 04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 2 0 6 0 5 1  03-04  04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  95-98 1052 446 410 140  98-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 00-01 1092 556 267 69  01-02 1276 574 354 107 D 02-03 1903 1050 512 172  03-04 1961 980 394 220  '04-05 1560 860 390 172  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05 I .l I -i I -l I l IJ I J I J I IJ I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18  00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21  02-03 522 193 63 13  03-04 469 157 66 18 753 325 111 43  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04  '04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  95-96 334 82 72 12  96-97 357 146 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11 D 02-03 244 86 83 25  03-04 316 155 51 16  '04-05 3 1 0 0  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1600- 1400 1200 1000- 800- 600 400 200- \u0026gt;- ol ~ Mi. ~ I ---- BM BF NBM NBF  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16 El 00-01 162 55 40 21  01-02 342 164 67 29 D 02-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  '04-05 110 30 11 1  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 rn 00-01  01-02 D 02-03  03-04  '04-05 I I I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 BM BF NBM NBF  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1 D 02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04  '04-05\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":"ncpl_ncpedia_double","title":"Double Voting: A Personal Account","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Robeson County, 34.64009, -79.10353"],"dcterms_creator":["Barton, Bruce"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Double Voting: A Personal Account","\"'Double Voting' in Robeson County: A Reminder of an Unequal Past\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.ncpedia.org/history/20th-Century/double-voting"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fbi_foia_till","title":"Emmett Till","collection_id":"fbi_foia","collection_title":"FBI Freedom of Information Act Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, Tallahatchie County, 33.95047, -90.17326","United States, Mississippi, Tallahatchie County, Sumner, 33.97095, -90.3687"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation"],"dc_date":["2004/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the Freedom of Information Privacy Act Collection.","System requirements: Adobe Acrobat reader."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Governmental investigations--United States","United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","African American youth--Violence against--Mississippi","African Americans--Violence against--Mississippi--History--20th century","African Americans--Mississippi","Hate crimes--Mississippi","Lynching--Mississippi--History--20th century","Mississippi--Race relations","Racism--Mississippi--History--20th century","Trials (Murder)--Mississippi--Sumner","Till, Emmett, 1941-1955--Death and burial","Milam, J. W.--Trials, litigation, etc.","Bryant, Roy, 1931-1994--Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Emmett Till"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://vault.fbi.gov/Emmett%20Till%20/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["federal government records"],"dcterms_extent":["2 files (391 p.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Till, Emmett, 1941-1955","Milam, J. W.","Bryant, Roy, 1931-1994"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vhs_crmva_equal","title":"Equal access to public accommodations","collection_id":"vhs_crmva","collection_title":"Civil Rights Movement in Virginia : An Exhibition on Display February 7 - June 19, 2004","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, 37.54812, -77.44675"],"dcterms_creator":["Richmond Times-Dispatch","Valentine Richmond History Center"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Section of online exhibit focusing on efforts to overcome discrimination in public accommodations ranging from the 1944 Irene Morgan court case against segregated seating on buses to the 1961 sit-ins and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The page includes ten black-and-white photographs and one newspaper article from the Virginia Historical Society, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the Valentine Richmond History Center.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of: The Civil Rights movement in Virginia (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Civil Rights Movement in Virginia Collection (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Segregation--Virginia","Civil rights movements--Virginia","African Americans--Civil rights--Virginia","Discrimination in public accommodations--Virginia","Segregation in transportation--Virginia"],"dcterms_title":["Equal access to public accommodations"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Virginia Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://virginiahistory.org/learn/historical-book/chapter/equal-access-public-accommodations"],"dcterms_temporal":["1940/1964"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs","newspapers","online exhibitions"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":326,"next_page":327,"prev_page":325,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3900,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}